Ontrak, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2009 September (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
____________________________
FORM
10-Q
QUARTERLY
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the
quarterly period ended
September 30, 2009
Commission
File Number
001-31932
_______________________
HYTHIAM,
INC.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
_______________________
Delaware
|
88-0464853
|
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
|
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
11150
Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1500, Los Angeles,
California 90025
(Address
of principal executive offices, including zip code)
(310)
444-4300
(Registrant's
telephone number, including area code)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be
submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit and post such
files).
Yes
þ No o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company.
See definitions of ‘‘accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer,’’ and
“smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check
one):
Large
accelerated filer o Accelerated
filer þ Non-accelerated
filer o Smaller
reporting company o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes
o No þ
As of
November 6, 2009, there were 65,102,950 shares of registrant's common
stock, $0.0001 par value, outstanding.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT
31.1
|
|||
EXHIBIT
31.2
|
|||
EXHIBIT
32.1
|
|||
EXHIBIT
32.2
|
PART I - FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
Item
1. Consolidated
Financial Statements
HYTHIAM,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(unaudited)
(In
thousands)
|
September 30, |
December
31,
|
|||||
2009
|
2008
|
||||||
ASSETS
|
|||||||
Current
assets
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 7,068 | $ | 9,756 | |||
Marketable
securities, at fair value
|
9,209 | 146 | |||||
Restricted
cash
|
- | 24 | |||||
Receivables,
net
|
305 | 654 | |||||
Prepaids
and other current assets
|
265 | 357 | |||||
Current
assets of discontinued operations
|
- | 3,053 | |||||
Total
current assets
|
16,847 | 13,990 | |||||
Long-term
assets
|
|||||||
Property
and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of
|
|||||||
$6,493
and $5,035, respectively
|
1,060 | 2,625 | |||||
Intangible
assets, net of accumulated amortization of
|
|||||||
$1,643
and $1,250, respectively
|
2,717 | 3,257 | |||||
Deposits
and other assets
|
210 | 318 | |||||
Marketable
securities, at fair value
|
- | 10,072 | |||||
Non-current
assets of discontinued operations
|
- | 1,604 | |||||
Total
Assets
|
$ | 20,834 | $ | 31,866 | |||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
|||||||
Current
liabilities
|
|||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$ | 2,555 | $ | 3,396 | |||
Accrued
compensation and benefits
|
776 | 1,476 | |||||
Other
accrued liabilities
|
2,069 | 2,082 | |||||
Short-term
debt
|
9,582 | 9,835 | |||||
Current
liabilities of discontinued operations
|
- | 8,675 | |||||
Total
current liabilities
|
14,982 | 25,464 | |||||
Long-term
liabilities
|
|||||||
Deferred
rent and other long-term liabilities
|
103 | 127 | |||||
Warrant
liabilities
|
6,112 | 156 | |||||
Capital
lease obligations
|
51 | 81 | |||||
Non-current
liabilities of discontinued operations
|
- | 4,930 | |||||
Total
liabilities
|
21,248 | 30,758 | |||||
Commitments
and contingencies
|
- | - | |||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
|||||||
Preferred
stock, $.0001 par value; 50,000,000 shares authorized;
|
|||||||
no
shares issued and outstanding
|
- | - | |||||
Common
stock, $.0001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized;
|
|||||||
65,097,000
and 54,965,000 shares issued and outstanding
|
|||||||
at
September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively
|
7 | 6 | |||||
Additional
paid-in-capital
|
183,475 | 174,721 | |||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive income
|
437 | - | |||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(184,333 | ) | (173,619 | ) | |||
Total
Stockholders' Equity (Deficit)
|
(414 | ) | 1,108 | ||||
Total
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity
|
$ | 20,834 | $ | 31,866 |
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
(unaudited)
Three
Months Ended
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||||
(In
thousands, except per share amounts)
|
September
30,
|
September
30,
|
|||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
Revenues
|
|||||||||||||||
Healthcare
services
|
268 | 1,258 | 1,346 | 5,295 | |||||||||||
Total
revenues
|
268 | 1,258 | 1,346 | 5,295 | |||||||||||
Operating
expenses
|
|||||||||||||||
Cost
of healthcare services
|
68 | 330 | 502 | 1,335 | |||||||||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
3,878 | 9,351 | 14,007 | 29,466 | |||||||||||
Research
and development
|
- | 713 | - | 2,986 | |||||||||||
Impairment
losses
|
- | - | 1,113 | - | |||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
273 | 510 | 979 | 1,419 | |||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
4,219 | 10,904 | 16,601 | 35,206 | |||||||||||
Loss
from operations
|
(3,951 | ) | (9,646 | ) | (15,255 | ) | (29,911 | ) | |||||||
Non-operating
income (expenses)
|
|||||||||||||||
Interest
& other income
|
19 | 113 | 142 | 738 | |||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(221 | ) | (637 | ) | (999 | ) | (1,149 | ) | |||||||
Loss
on extinguishment of debt
|
(54 | ) | - | (330 | ) | - | |||||||||
Gain
on the sale of marketable securities
|
160 | - | 160 | - | |||||||||||
Other
than temporary impairment of
|
|||||||||||||||
marketablesecurities
|
(25 | ) | - | (185 | ) | - | |||||||||
Change
in fair value of warrant liabilities
|
(4,767 | ) | 3,758 | (4,683 | ) | 4,713 | |||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations before
|
|||||||||||||||
provision
for income taxes
|
(8,839 | ) | (6,412 | ) | (21,150 | ) | (25,609 | ) | |||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
3 | 6 | 13 | 23 | |||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (8,842 | ) | $ | (6,418 | ) | $ | (21,163 | ) | $ | (25,632 | ) | |||
Discontinued
Operations:
|
|||||||||||||||
Results
of discontinued operations, net of tax
|
- | 141 | 10,449 | (5,449 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (8,842 | ) | $ | (6,277 | ) | $ | (10,714 | ) | $ | (31,081 | ) | |||
Basic
and diluted net income (loss) per share:
|
|||||||||||||||
Continuing
operations
|
$ | (0.16 | ) | $ | (0.12 | ) | $ | (0.38 | ) | $ | (0.47 | ) | |||
Discontinued
operations
|
- | 0.01 | 0.19 | (0.10 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
loss per share
|
$ | (0.16 | ) | $ | (0.11 | ) | $ | (0.19 | ) | $ | (0.57 | ) | |||
Weighted average number of shares outstanding | 56,373 | 54,629 | 55,509 | 54,479 |
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
(unaudited)
Nine
Months Ended
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
September
30,
|
||||||
2009
|
2008
|
||||||
Operating
activities
|
|||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (10,713 | ) | $ | (31,081 | ) | |
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
|||||||
(Income)
loss from Discontinued Operations
|
$ | (10,449 | ) | $ | 5,449 | ||
Depreciation
and Amortization
|
978 | 1,419 | |||||
Amortization
of debt discount and issuance costs included in interest
expense
|
735 | 401 | |||||
Other
than temporary impairment on marketable securities
|
185 | - | |||||
Gain
on sale of marketable securities
|
(159 | ) | - | ||||
Provision
for doubtful accounts
|
493 | 879 | |||||
Deferred
rent
|
88 | (311 | ) | ||||
Share-based
compensation expense
|
3,465 | 6,962 | |||||
Loss
on debt extinguishment
|
230 | - | |||||
Change
in fair value of warrant liabilities
|
4,684 | (3,403 | ) | ||||
Impairment
losses
|
1,113 | - | |||||
Loss
on disposition of assets
|
16 | 694 | |||||
Changes
in current assets and liabilities, net of business
acquired:
|
|||||||
Receivables
|
(52 | ) | (330 | ) | |||
Prepaids
and other current assets
|
169 | 778 | |||||
Accounts
payable, accrued compensation & other accrued
liabilities
|
(1,734 | ) | 434 | ||||
Long
Term Accrued Liabilities
|
6 | - | |||||
Net
cash used in operating activities of continuing operations
|
(10,945 | ) | (18,109 | ) | |||
Net
cash used in operating activities of discontinued
operations
|
(1,103 | ) | (6,506 | ) | |||
Net
cash used in operating activities
|
(12,048 | ) | (24,615 | ) | |||
Investing
activities
|
|||||||
Purchases
of marketable securities
|
- | (65,197 | ) | ||||
Proceeds
from sales and maturities of marketable securities
|
1,420 | 87,770 | |||||
Proceeds
from sales of property and equipment
|
13 | 17 | |||||
Proceeds
from disposition of CompCare
|
1,500 | - | |||||
Restricted
cash
|
24 | (13 | ) | ||||
Purchases
of property and equipment
|
(17 | ) | (899 | ) | |||
Deposits
and other assets
|
16 | 141 | |||||
Cost
of intangibles
|
- | (178 | ) | ||||
Net
cash from by investing activities by continuing operations
|
2,956 | 21,641 | |||||
Net
cash from (used in) by investing activities by discontinued
operations
|
39 | (21 | ) | ||||
Net
cash from by investing activities
|
2,995 | 21,620 | |||||
Financing
activities
|
|||||||
Proceeds
from the issuance of common stock and warrants
|
7,000 | - | |||||
Costs
related to the issuance of common stock and warrants
|
(683 | ) | - | ||||
Proceeds
from drawdown on UBS line of credit
|
2,072 | 5,365 | |||||
Paydown
of Short-Term Debt
|
(3,014 | ) | - | ||||
Capital
lease obligations
|
(74 | ) | (111 | ) | |||
Net
cash from financing activities by continuing operations
|
5,301 | 5,254 | |||||
Net
cash from (used in) financing activities by discontinued
operations
|
(73 | ) | 316 | ||||
Net
cash from financing activities
|
5,228 | 5,570 |
(continued
on next page)
HYTHIAM,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
(unaudited)
(continued)
Nine
Months Ended
|
|||||||
(In
thousands)
|
September
30,
|
||||||
2009
|
2008
|
||||||
Net
increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents for continuing
operations
|
(2,688 | ) | 8,786 | ||||
Net
decrease in cash and cash equivalents for discontinued
operations
|
(1,137 | ) | (6,211 | ) | |||
Net
increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
(3,825 | ) | 2,575 | ||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
10,893 | 11,149 | |||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$ | 7,068 | $ | 13,724 | |||
Supplemental
disclosure of cash paid
|
|||||||
Interest
|
$ | 197 | $ | 346 | |||
Income
taxes
|
77 | 16 | |||||
Supplemental
disclosure of non-cash activity
|
|||||||
Common
stock, options and warrants issued for outside services
|
$ | 168 | 1,665 |
See
accompanying notes to the financial statements.
Hythiam, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(unaudited)
Note
1. Basis of Consolidation, Presentation and Going
Concern
The
accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements for
Hythiam, Inc. (referred to herein as the Company, Hythiam, we, us or our) and
our subsidiaries have been prepared in accordance with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) rules for interim financial information and do not
include all information and notes required for complete financial statements. In
our opinion, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments,
considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Interim results
are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the
entire fiscal year. The accompanying financial information should be read in
conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto in our most
recent Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, from which the December 31, 2008 balance
sheet has been derived.
Our
financial statements have been prepared on the basis that we will continue as a
going concern. At September 30, 2009, cash and cash equivalents amounted to $7.1
million and we had working capital of approximately $1.9 million. Our working
capital includes $9.2 million of auction-rate securities (ARS) that are
currently illiquid. We have incurred significant operating losses and negative
cash flows from operations since our inception. During the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2009, our cash and cash equivalents used in operating
activities amounted to $2.6 million and $12.0 million, respectively. We expect
to continue to incur negative cash flows and net losses for at least the next
twelve months. As of September 30, 2009, these conditions raised substantial
doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern.
Our
ability to fund our ongoing operations and continue as a going concern is
dependent on raising additional capital, signing and generating revenue from new
contracts for our Catasys® managed
care programs and the success of management’s plans to increase revenue and
continue to decrease expenses. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, and
continuing in each of the quarters during 2009, management took actions that we
expect will result in reducing annual operating expenses by a total of
approximately $15.9 million, compared to the third quarter of 2008, including
$10.2 million from actions taken in the fourth quarter of 2008 and $5.7 million
from further actions taken in the first three quarters of 2009. In addition,
management currently has plans for additional cost reductions in certain
payroll, support and occupancy costs, consulting and other outside services if
required. Also, we have renegotiated certain leasing and vendor agreements to
obtain more favorable pricing and to restructure payment terms. We have also
negotiated and plan to negotiate more favorable payment terms with vendors,
which include negotiating settlements for outstanding liabilities. We have
exited certain markets in our licensee operations that management has determined
will not provide short-term profitability. We may exit additional markets in our
licensee operations and further curtail or restructure our Company managed
treatment center to reduce costs or if management determines that those markets
will not provide short-term profitability. We do not expect the cost impact of
such actions to be material. In September 2009, we signed an agreement with
Ford® Motor
Company (Ford) to provide the Catasys integrated substance dependence
solution to Ford’s hourly employees in Michigan who are enrolled in the National
PPO and who meet certain criteria, and we raised approximately $7 million in a
registered direct equity placement with selected institutional investors. We are
pursuing additional new Catasys contracts and additional capital. As of October
31, 2009, we had net cash on hand of approximately $6.1 million. Excluding
short-term debt and non-current accrued liability payments, our current plans
call for expending cash at a rate of approximately $650,000 per month. At
presently anticipated rates, which do not include management’s plans for
additional cost reductions, we will need to obtain additional funds within the
next eleven to twelve months to avoid drastically curtailing or ceasing our
operations. We are currently in discussions with third parties regarding
additional financing. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in
our efforts to generate, increase, or maintain revenue; or raise necessary funds
on acceptable terms or at all, and we may not be able to offset this by
sufficient reductions in expenses and increases in revenue. If this occurs, we
may be unable to meet our cash obligations as they become due and we may be
required to further delay or reduce operating expenses and curtail our
operations, which would have a material adverse effect on us, or we may be
unable to continue as a going concern. This has raised substantial doubts
from our auditors as to our ability to continue as a going concern. The
financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the
recoverability of the carrying amount of the recorded assets or the amount of
liabilities that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
Pursuant
to a Stock Purchase Agreement between WoodCliff (our wholly-owned subsidiary)
and Core Corporate Consulting Group, Inc., dated January 14, 2009, and effective
as of January 20, 2009, we have disposed of our entire interest in our
controlled subsidiary, Comprehensive Care Corporation (CompCare), consisting of
14,400 shares of Class A Series Preferred Stock, and 1,739,130 shares of common
stock of CompCare held by Woodcliff, for aggregate gross proceeds of $1.5
million. We did not present CompCare as “held for sale” at December 31, 2008
since all of the criteria specified by current accounting rules had not been met
as of that date. The financial statements and footnotes present the operations,
assets, liabilities and cash flows of CompCare as a discontinued operation. See
Note 5, Discontinued
Operations, for further discussion.
Based on
the provisions of the management services agreement (MSA) between us and our
managed professional medical corporation, we have determined that it constitutes
a variable interest entity, and that we are the primary beneficiary as defined
in current Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) accounting rules relating
to the consolidation of variable interest entities. Accordingly, we are required
to consolidate the revenue and expenses of our managed professional medical
corporation. See Note 2 Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies under the header Management Service Agreements
for more discussion.
All
intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.
Certain amounts in the consolidated financial statements for the same periods in
2008 have been reclassified to conform to the presentation for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2009.
We have
evaluated subsequent events through November 9, 2009, the filing date of this
quarterly report.
Note
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Revenue
Recognition
Our
healthcare services revenues to date have been primarily derived from licensing
our PROMETA Treatment Program and providing administrative services to
hospitals, treatment facilities and other healthcare providers, and from
revenues generated by our managed treatment centers. We record revenues earned
based on the terms of our licensing and management contracts, which requires the
use of judgment, including the assessment of the collectability of receivables.
Licensing agreements typically provide for a fixed fee on a per-patient basis,
payable to us following the providers’ commencement of the use of our program to
treat patients. For revenue recognition purposes, we treat the program licensing
and related administrative services as one unit of accounting. We record the
fees owed to us under the terms of the agreements at the time we have performed
substantially all required services for each use of our program, which for the
significant majority of our license agreements to date is in the period in which
the provider begins using the program for medically directed and supervised
treatment of a patient and, in other cases, is at the time that medical
treatment has been completed.
The
revenues of our managed treatment center, which we include in our
consolidated financial statements, are derived from charging fees directly to
patients for medical treatments, including the PROMETA Treatment Program.
Revenues from patients treated at the managed treatment center are recorded
based on the number of days of treatment completed during the period as a
percentage of the total number of treatment days for the PROMETA Treatment
Program. Revenues relating to the continuing care portion of the PROMETA
Treatment Program are deferred and recorded over the period during which the
continuing care services are provided.
Cost
of Healthcare Services
Cost of
healthcare services represent direct costs that are incurred in connection with
licensing our treatment programs and providing administrative services in
accordance with the various technology license and services agreements, and are
associated directly with the revenue that we recognize. Consistent with our
revenue recognition policy, the costs associated with providing these services
are recognized, for a significant majority of our agreements, in the period in
which patient treatment commences, and in other cases, at the time treatment has
been completed. Such costs include royalties paid for the use of the PROMETA
Treatment Program for patients treated by all licensees, and direct labor costs,
continuing care expense, medical supplies and program medications for patients
treated at the managed treatment center.
Our
comprehensive loss is as follows:
Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | ||||||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
September 30, | September 30, | |||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (8,842 | ) | $ | (6,277 | ) | $ | (10,714 | ) | $ | (31,081 | ) | |||
Other
comprehensive income (loss):
|
|||||||||||||||
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities available for
sale
|
14 | (316 | ) | 467 | (1,092 | ) | |||||||||
Reclassification
adjustment for Net Realized Gain included in loss from continuing
operations
|
(30 | ) | - | (30 | ) | - | |||||||||
Comprehensive
loss
|
$ | (8,858 | ) | $ | (6,593 | ) | $ | (10,277 | ) | $ | (32,173 | ) |
Basic
and Diluted Income (Loss) per Share
Basic
income (loss) per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) to common
stockholders for the period by the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during the period. Diluted income (loss) per share is computed by
dividing the net income (loss) for the period by the weighted average
number of common and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding during the
period.
Common
equivalent shares, consisting of 29,349,000 and 14,297,000 of incremental common
shares as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, issuable upon the
exercise of stock options and warrants have been excluded from the diluted
earnings per share calculation because their effect is
anti-dilutive.
Share-Based
Compensation
The
Hythiam, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan and 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the
Plans), both as amended, provide for the issuance of up to 15 million
shares of our common stock. Incentive stock options (ISOs) under Section 422A of
the Internal Revenue Code and non-qualified options (NSOs) are authorized under
the Plans. We have granted stock options to executive officers, employees,
members of our board of directors, and certain outside consultants. The terms
and conditions upon which options become exercisable vary among grants, but
option rights expire no later than ten years from the date of grant and employee
and board of director awards generally vest over periods of three to five years.
At September 30, 2009, we had 9,816,000 vested and unvested shares outstanding
and 4,381,000 shares available for future awards.
Share-based
compensation expense attributable to continuing operations amounted to $1.0
million and $3.5 million respectively for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2009, compared to $2.8 million and $7.0 million respectively for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008.
Stock
Options – Employees and Directors
We
measure and recognize compensation expense for all share-based payment awards
made to employees and directors based on estimated fair values on the date of
grant. We estimate the fair value of share-based payment awards using the Black
Scholes option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that is
ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service
periods in the consolidated statements of operations. Prior to the adoption of
these accounting changes, we accounted for share-based awards to employees and
directors using an intrinsic value method allowable under previous FASB rules.
Under the intrinsic value method, no share-based compensation expense had been
recognized in our consolidated statements of operations for awards to employees
and directors because the exercise price of our stock options equaled the fair
market value of the underlying stock at the date of grant.
Share-based
compensation expense attributable to continuing operations recognized for
employees and directors for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009
amounted to $910,000 and $3.2 million respectively, compared to $2.1 million and
$5.4 million respectively for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2008.
In May
2009, we re-priced 4,739,000 previously issued stock options for directors,
officers and certain employees at a price of $0.28. We accounted for the
re-pricing in accordance with FASB’s accounting rules for modified stock
options, and we recognized additional stock based compensation expense of
$38,000 and $363,000, respectively, for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2009 related to the modified stock options.
Share-based
compensation expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and
2008 includes compensation expense for share-based payment awards granted prior
to, but not yet vested, as of January 1, 2006 based on the grant date fair value
estimated in accordance with the pro-forma provisions of FASB’s accounting rules
for stock options, and for the share-based payment awards granted subsequent to
January 1, 2006 based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with
the transition provisions of FASB’s stock option accounting rules. For
share-based awards issued to employees and directors, share-based compensation
is attributed to expense using the straight-line single option method.
Share-based compensation expense for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2009 and 2008 is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, reduced for
estimated forfeitures. Accounting rules for stock options require forfeitures to
be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent
periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.
During
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, we granted options
to employees for 0, 497,000, 425,000 and 4,577,000 shares, respectively, at the
weighted average per share exercise price of $0.00, $0.30, $2.07, and
$2.58, respectively, the fair market value of our common stock at the dates
of grants. Approximately 271,700 of the options granted in 2009 vested
immediately on the date of grant. Employee and director stock option activity
for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 was
as follows:
Weighted
Avg.
|
|||||||
Shares
|
Exercise
Price
|
||||||
Balance,
December 31, 2008
|
8,260,000 | $ | 3.07 | ||||
Three
months ended March 31, 2009
|
|||||||
Granted
|
272,000 | 0.31 | |||||
Exercised
|
- | - | |||||
Cancelled
|
(487,000 | ) | 2.27 | ||||
Balance,
March 31, 2009
|
8,045,000 | $ | 3.03 | ||||
Three
months ended June 30, 2009
|
|||||||
Granted
|
225,000 | 0.28 | |||||
Exercised
|
- | - | |||||
Cancelled
|
(167,000 | ) | 3.25 | ||||
Balance,
June 30, 2009
|
8,103,000 | $ | 2.94 | ||||
Three
months ended September 30, 2009
|
|||||||
Granted
|
- | - | |||||
Exercised
|
- | - | |||||
Cancelled
|
(139,000 | ) | 1.20 | ||||
Balance,
September 30, 2009
|
7,964,000 | $ | 2.97 |
The
estimated fair value of options granted to employees during the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 was $0, $94,000, $537,000 and
$7.1million, respectively, calculated using the Black-Scholes pricing model with
the following assumptions:
Three
Months Ended
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
||||||
September
30,
|
September
30,
|
||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||
Expected
volatility
|
72%
|
64%
|
72%
|
64%
|
|||
Risk-free
interest rate
|
2.27-2.37%
|
3.36%
|
2.27-2.37%
|
3.30%
|
|||
Weighted
average expected lives in years
|
5-6
|
6.0
|
5-6
|
5.8
|
|||
Expected
dividend
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
The
expected volatility assumptions have been based on the historical and expected
volatility of our stock and the stock of other public healthcare companies,
measured over a period generally commensurate with the expected term. The
weighted average expected option term for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008 reflects the application of the simplified method
prescribed in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 107 (and as amended by SAB
110), which defines the life as the average of the contractual term of the
options and the weighted average vesting period for all option
tranches.
We
elected to adopt the detailed method provided in stock option accounting rules
prescribed by the FASB for calculating the beginning balance of the additional
paid-in capital pool (APIC pool) related to the tax effects of employee
share-based compensation, and to determine the subsequent impact on the APIC
pool and consolidated statements of cash flows of the tax effects of employee
share-based compensation awards that were outstanding upon adoption of such
rules on January 1, 2006.
As of
September 30, 2009, there was $4.8 million of total unrecognized compensation
costs related to non-vested share-based compensation arrangements granted under
the Plan. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period
of approximately 1 year.
Stock
Options and Warrants – Non-employees
We
account for the issuance of options and warrants for services from non-employees
by estimating the fair value of warrants issued using the Black-Scholes pricing
model. This model’s calculations include the option or warrant exercise price,
the market price of shares on grant date, the weighted average risk-free
interest rate, expected life of the option or warrant, expected volatility of
our stock and expected dividends.
For
options and warrants issued as compensation to non-employees for services that
are fully vested and non-forfeitable at the time of issuance, the estimated
value is recorded in equity and expensed when the services are performed and
benefit is received. For unvested shares, the change in fair value during the
period is recognized in expense using the graded vesting method.
During
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, we granted options
for 0, 60,000, 105,000 and 190,000 shares, respectively, at the weighted average
per share exercise price of $0.00, $0.52, $2.55, and
$2.59, respectively, the fair market value of our common stock at the dates
of grants. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008,
share-based expense attributable to continuing operations relating to stock
options and warrants granted to non-employees was $43,000, $67,000,
$132,000 and $184,000, respectively.
Non-employee
stock option and warrant activity for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2009 was as follows:
Weighted
Avg.
|
|||||||
Shares
|
Exercise
Price
|
||||||
Balance,
December 31, 2008
|
2,095,000 | $ | 3.91 | ||||
Three
months ended March 31, 2009
|
|||||||
Granted
|
- | - | |||||
Exercised
|
- | - | |||||
Cancelled
|
(195,000 | ) | 6.92 | ||||
Balance,
March 31, 2009
|
1,900,000 | $ | 3.61 | ||||
Three
months ended June 30, 2009
|
|||||||
Granted
|
60,000 | 0.52 | |||||
Exercised
|
- | - | |||||
Cancelled
|
(20,000 | ) | 7.31 | ||||
Balance,
June 30, 2009
|
1,940,000 | $ | (0.05 | ) | |||
Three
months ended September 30, 2009
|
|||||||
Granted
|
- | ||||||
Exercised
|
- | - | |||||
Cancelled
|
(103,755 | ) | 3.40 | ||||
Balance,
September 30, 2009
|
1,836,245 | $ | (0.18 | ) |
Common
Stock
During
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, we issued 600,000,
789,000 , 409,000 and 601,000 shares of common stock, respectively valued at
$168,000, $245,000, $1.2 million and $1.7 million respectively, in exchange for
consulting services. These costs are being amortized to share-based
expense on a straight-line basis over the related nine month to one year service
periods. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008,
share-based expense relating to common stock issued for consulting services was
$52,000, $227,000, $550,000 and $1.3 million, respectively.
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
We have a
qualified employee stock purchase plan (ESPP), approved by our
stockholders, which allows qualified employees to participate in the
purchase of designated shares of our common stock at a price equal to 85% of the
lower of the closing price at the beginning or end of each specified stock
purchase period. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we issued
8,928 shares of our common stock pursuant to the ESPP and no expense was
incurred for this period. Share-based expense relating to the ESPP
discount price was $1,000 and $2,000 respectively for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2008.
Income
Taxes
We
account for income taxes using the liability method in accordance with current
FASB income tax accounting rules. To date, no current income
tax liability has been recorded due to our accumulated net losses. Deferred
tax assets and liabilities are recognized for temporary differences between the
financial statement carrying amount of assets and liabilities and the amounts
that are reported in the tax return. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are
recorded on a net basis; however, our net deferred tax assets have been fully
reserved by a valuation allowance due to the uncertainty of our ability to
realize future taxable income and to recover our net deferred tax assets. We
recognize the impact of tax positions in the consolidated financial statements
if that position is more likely than not of being sustained on audit, based on
the technical merits of the position. To date, we have not recorded any
uncertain tax positions.
Costs
associated with streamlining our operations
In
January 2008, we streamlined our operations to increase our focus on managed
care opportunities, significantly reducing our field and regional sales
personnel and related corporate support personnel, the number of outside
consultants utilized, closing our PROMETA Center in San Francisco and lowering
overall corporate overhead costs. In April 2008, the fourth quarter of
2008, and in the first, second and third quarters of 2009, we took further
actions to streamline our operations and increase the focus on managed care
opportunities. The actions we took in the first and second quarters of 2009 also
included renegotiation of certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more
favorable pricing and to restructure payment terms with vendors, which included
negotiating settlements for outstanding liabilities, and has resulted in delays
and reductions in operating expenses. In May 2009, we terminated the MSAs with a
medical professional corporation and a managed treatment center located in
Dallas, Texas “for cause” and because the Company had fully met its funding
requirements with respect to the MSAs.
During
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, we recorded $1,000,
$275,000, $1.2 million and $2.6 million, respectively, in costs associated with
actions taken to streamline our operations. These costs primarily represent
severance and related benefits. The costs incurred in 2009 also include
impairment of assets and other costs related to termination of the management
service agreements for our Dallas managed treatment center. The costs incurred
in 2008 also include costs incurred to close the San Francisco PROMETA Center.
Expenses and accrued liabilities for such costs are recognized and measured
initially at fair value in the period when the liability is
incurred.
Marketable
Securities
Investments
include ARS and certificates of deposit with maturity dates greater than three
months when purchased. These investments are classified as available-for-sale
investments, are reflected in current assets as marketable securities and are
stated at fair market value in accordance with FASB accounting rules related to
investment in debt securities. Unrealized gains and losses are reported in
our Consolidated Balance Sheet within the caption entitled “Accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss)” and within Comprehensive Income (Loss) under
the caption “other comprehensive income (loss).” Realized gains and losses are
recognized in the statement of operations on the specific identification method
in the period in which they occur. Declines in estimated fair value judged to be
other-than-temporary are recognized as an impairment charge in the statement of
operations in the period in which they occur.
In making
our determination whether losses are considered to be “other-than-temporary”
declines in value, we consider the following factors at each quarter-end
reporting period:
●
|
How
long and by how much the fair value of the ARS securities have been below
cost
|
●
|
The
financial condition of the issuers
|
●
|
Any
downgrades of the securities by rating
agencies
|
●
|
Default
on interest or other terms
|
●
|
Whether
it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the ARS before
the recover in value
|
In
accordance with current accounting rules for investments in debt securities and
additional application guidance issued by the FASB in April 2009,
other-than-temporary declines in value are reflected as a non-operating expense
in our Consolidated Statement of Operations because it is more likely than not
that we will be required to sell the ARS before they recover in value, whereas
subsequent increases in value are reflected as unrealized gains in accumulated
other comprehensive income in Stockholders’ Equity on our Consolidated Balance
Sheet.
Our
marketable securities consisted of investments with the following maturities as
of September 30, 2009 and 2008:
(Dollars
in thousands)
|
Fair
Market
|
Less
than
|
More
than
|
|||||||
Value
|
1
Year
|
10
Years
|
||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2009
|
||||||||||
Certificates
of deposit
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||
Auction-rate
securities
|
9,209 | - | 9,209 | |||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
||||||||||
Certificates
of deposit
|
146 | 146 | - | |||||||
Auction-rate
securities (long-term)
|
10,072 | - | 10,072 | |||||||
Total
short-term marketable securities
|
$ | 10,218 | $ | 146 | $ | 10,072 |
As of
September 30, 2009, our total investment in ARS was $10.2 million (par value).
In February 2008, the market for ARS effectively ceased when the vast majority
of auctions failed and prevented holders from selling their investments.
Although the securities are Aaa/AAA rated and collateralized by portfolios of
student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government, based on current market
conditions it is likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the
short-term, limiting the liquidity of these investments until the issuer calls
the securities. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully
recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or
does not exist. In October 2008, our portfolio manager, UBS AG (UBS) made a
Rights offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS
all ARS held by us in our UBS account. The rights offering permits us to require
UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued
but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012
if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. Because of our ability to
sell the ARS under the UBS rights offering, the ARS investments have been
classified in current assets at September 30, 2009. In August 2009, $1.1 million
of our ARS was redeemed at par by the issuer, resulting in proceeds of
approximately $1.3 million and a gain of approximately $160,000.
Considering
the illiquid ARS market, the recent deterioration of overall market conditions
and our financial condition and near-term liquidity needs, we have concluded
that it is likely that we would need to sell our ARS before they would recover
in value and any decline in the fair value of ARS should be considered as
‘other-than-temporary’. Based on the current estimated fair value at September
30, 2009 (see discussion below under the heading Fair Value Measurements for a
complete discussion of our valuation methods), we recognized approximately
$25,000 and $185,000, respectively, in impairment charges for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2009. We also recognized unrealized gains of
approximately $14,000 and $467,000 for temporary increases in estimated fair
value of certain other ARS for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2009, respectively. These securities will continue to be analyzed
each reporting period for other-than-temporary impairment factors, which
may require us to recognize additional impairment charges. If our efforts to
raise additional capital as discussed in Note 1 are successful, we believe that
we will not require access to the underlying ARS prior to June 30,
2010.
Fair
Value Measurements
Fair
value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to
transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at
the measurement date. Assets and liabilities recorded at fair value in the
consolidated balance sheets are categorized based upon the level of judgment
associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. The fair value
hierarchy distinguishes between (1) market participant assumptions
developed based on market data obtained from independent sources (observable
inputs) and (2) an entity’s own assumptions about market participant
assumptions developed based on the best information available in the
circumstances (unobservable inputs). The fair value hierarchy consists of three
broad levels, which gives the highest
priority
to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3).
The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:
Level Input:
|
Input
Definition:
|
|
Level
I
|
Inputs
are unadjusted, quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in
active markets at the measurement date.
|
|
Level
II
|
Inputs,
other than quoted prices included in Level I, that are observable for the
asset or liability through corroboration with market data at the
measurement date.
|
|
Level
III
|
Unobservable
inputs that reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants
would use in pricing the asset or liability at the measurement
date.
|
The
following table summarizes fair value measurements by level at September 30,
2009 for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring
basis:
(Dollars
in thousands)
|
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
||||||||||
Auction-rate
securities
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 9,209 | $ | 9,209 | ||||||
Certificates
of deposit (1)
|
133 | - | - | 133 | ||||||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 133 | $ | - | $ | 9,209 | $ | 9,342 | ||||||
Warrant
liabilities
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 6,112 | $ | 6,112 | ||||||
Total
liabilities
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 6,112 | $ | 6,112 | ||||||
(1)
included in deposits and other assets on our consolidated balance
sheets
|
Financial
instruments classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy as of September
30, 2009 represent our investment in ARS, in which management has used at least
one significant unobservable input in the valuation model. See discussion above
in Marketable
Securities for additional information on our ARS, including a description
of the securities, a discussion of the uncertainties relating to their liquidity
and our accounting treatment. As discussed above, the market for ARS effectively
ceased when the vast majority of auctions began to fail in February 2008. As a
result, quoted prices for our ARS did not exist as of September 30, 2009 and,
accordingly, we concluded that Level 1 inputs were not available and
unobservable inputs were used. We determined that use of a valuation model was
the best available technique for measuring the fair value of our ARS portfolio
and we based our estimates of the fair value using valuation models and
methodologies that utilize an income-based approach to estimate the price that
would be received to sell our securities in an orderly transaction between
market participants. The estimated price was derived as the present value of
expected cash flows over an estimated period of illiquidity, using a risk
adjusted discount rate that was based on the credit risk and liquidity risk of
the securities. While our valuation model was based on both Level II (credit
quality and interest rates) and Level III inputs, we determined that the Level
III inputs were the most significant to the overall fair value measurement,
particularly the estimates of risk adjusted discount rates and estimated periods
of illiquidity.
Liabilities
measured at market value on a recurring basis include warrant liabilities
resulting from recent debt and equity financing. In accordance with current
accounting rules, the warrant liabilities are being marked to market each
quarter-end until they are completely settled. The warrants are valued using the
Black-Scholes method, using both observable and unobservable inputs and
assumptions consistent with those used in our estimate of fair value of employee
stock options. See Warrant
Liabilities below.
The
following table summarizes our fair value measurements using significant Level
III inputs, and changes therein, for the nine months ended September 30,
2009:
Level
III
|
||||||||||
Level
III
|
Warrant
|
|||||||||
(Dollars
in thousands)
|
ARS
|
Liabilities
|
||||||||
Balance
as of December 31, 2008
|
$ | 10,072 |
Balance
as of December 31, 2008
|
$ | - | |||||
Transfers
in/out of Level III
|
- |
Transfers
in/out of Level III
|
156 | |||||||
Net
purchases (sales)
|
(1,275 | ) |
Initial
valuation of warrant liabilities
|
1,273 | (b) | |||||
Net
unrealized gains (losses)
|
437 |
Change
in fair value of
|
||||||||
Net
realized gains (losses)
|
(25 | ) (a) |
|
warrant
liabilities
|
4,683 | |||||
Balance
as of September 30, 2009
|
$ | 9,209 |
Balance
as of September 30, 2009
|
$ | 6,112 | |||||
(a)
|
Includes
other-than-temporary loss on auction-rate securities.
|
|||||||||
(b)
|
Represents
initial valuation of warrants issued in conjunction with the Registered
Direct Placement in
|
|||||||||
September
2009 and adjustment related to the modification of the Highbridge Senior
Secured Note in
|
||||||||||
August
2009.
|
As reflected in the table
above, net sales were $1.3 million as of September 30, 2009 and represent
proceeds realized from the redemption of a certain ARS at par by the
issuer, resulting in a gain of approximately $160,000. The net realized gains
(losses) include $185,000 of other-than-temporary losses, partially offset by
the gain referred to above.
Assets
that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis include intellectual
property, with a carrying amount of $2.7 million at September 30, 2009. In
accordance with FASB’s accounting rules for intangible assets, we perform an
impairment test each quarter and intangible assets were written down to their
implied fair value at March 31, 2009, resulting in an impairment charge of
$355,000 during the three months. See discussion in Intangible Assets
below.
Fair
Value Information about Financial Instruments Not Measured at Fair
Value
FASB
rules regarding fair value disclosures of financial instruments requires
disclosure of fair value information about certain financial instruments for
which it is practical to estimate that value. The carrying amounts reported in
our balance sheet for cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts
receivable, notes receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities
approximate fair value because of the immediate or short-term maturity of these
financial instruments. The carrying values of our outstanding short and
long-term debt were $9.6 million and $9.8 million and the fair values were $9.2
million and $9.6 million as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. Considerable judgment is required to develop estimates of fair
value. Accordingly, the estimates are not necessarily indicative of the amounts
we could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market
assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the
estimated fair value amounts.
Intangible
Assets
As of
September 30, 2009, the gross and net carrying amounts of intangible assets that
are subject to amortization are as follows:
Gross
|
Amortization
|
||||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
Carrying
|
Accumulated
|
Net
|
Period
|
|||||||||
Amount
|
Amortization
|
Balance
|
(in
years)
|
||||||||||
Intellectual
property
|
$ | 4,360 | $ | (1,643 | ) | $ | 2,717 | 12-18 |
During
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 we did not acquire any new
intangible assets and at September 30, 2009, all of our intangible assets
consisted of intellectual property, which is not subject to renewal or
extension. We performed an impairment test on intellectual property as of March
31, 2009 and after considering
numerous
factors, including a valuation of the intellectual property by an independent
third party, we determined that the carrying value of certain intangible assets
was not recoverable and exceeded the fair value and we recorded an impairment
charge totaling $355,000 for these assets as of March 31, 2009. These charges
included $122,000 for intangible assets related to our managed treatment center
in Dallas and $233,000 related to intellectual property for additional
indications for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program that are currently
non-revenue generating. In its valuation, the independent third-party valuation
firm relied on the “relief from royalty” method, as this method was deemed to be
most relevant to the intellectual property assets of the Company. We determined
that the estimated useful lives of the remaining intellectual property properly
reflected the current remaining economic useful lives of the assets. We also
performed additional impairment tests on intellectual property at June 30 and
September 30, 2009 and determined that no additional impairment charges were
necessary.
Estimated
remaining amortization expense for intangible assets for the current year and
each of the next five years ending December 31 is as follows:
(In
thousands)
|
|||
Year
|
Amount
|
||
2009
|
$ | 58 | |
2010
|
$ | 234 | |
2011
|
$ | 234 | |
2012
|
$ | 234 | |
2013
|
$ | 234 |
Property
and Equipment
Property
and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Additions and
improvements to property and equipment are capitalized at cost. Expenditures for
maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred. Depreciation is
computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
related assets, which range from two to seven years for furniture and equipment.
Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of the estimated useful
lives of the assets or the related lease term, which is typically five to seven
years.
During
the three months ended March 31, 2009, we performed an impairment test on all
property and equipment, including capitalized software related to our Behavioral
Health segment. As a result of this testing, we determined that the carrying
value of this asset was not recoverable and exceeded its fair value and we wrote
off the $758,000 net book value of this software as of March 31, 2009. This
impairment charge was recognized in operating expenses in our consolidated
statements of operations. We also performed impairment tests on all property and
equipment June 30 and September 30, 2009 and determined that no additional
impairment charge was necessary.
Variable
Interest Entities
Generally,
an entity is defined as a Variable Interest Entity (VIE) under current
accounting rules if it has (a) equity that is insufficient to permit the entity
to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from
other parties, or (b) equity investors that cannot make significant decisions
about the entity’s operations, or that do not absorb the expected losses or
receive the expected returns of the entity. When determining whether an entity
that is a business qualifies as a VIE, we also consider whether (i) we
participated significantly in the design of the entity, (ii) we provided more
than half of the total financial support to the entity, and (iii) substantially
all of the activities of the VIE either involve us or are conducted on our
behalf. A VIE is consolidated by its primary beneficiary, which is the party
that absorbs or receives a majority of the entity’s expected losses or expected
residual returns.
As
discussed under the heading
Management Services Agreements below, we have a MSA with a managed
medical corporation. Under this MSA, the equity owner of the affiliated medical
group has only a nominal equity investment at risk, and we absorb or receive a
majority of the entity’s expected losses or expected residual returns. We
participate significantly in the design of this MSA. We also agree to provide
working capital loans to allow for the medical group to pay for its obligations.
Substantially all of the activities of this managed medical corporation either
involve us or are conducted for our benefit, as evidenced by the facts that (i)
the operations of the managed
medical
corporation are conducted primarily using our licensed protocols and (ii) under
the MSA, we agree to provide and perform all non-medical management and
administrative services for the medical group. Payment of our management
fee is subordinate to payments of the obligations of the medical group, and
repayment of the working capital loans is not guaranteed by the equity owner of
the affiliated medical group or other third party. Creditors of the managed
medical corporation do not have recourse to our general credit.
Based on
the design and provisions of these MSA and the working capital loans provided to
the medical group, we have determined that the managed medical corporation is a
VIE, and that we are the primary beneficiary as defined in the current
accounting rules. Accordingly, we are required to consolidate the revenues and
expenses of the managed medical corporation.
Management
Services Agreements
We have
executed MSAs with medical professional corporations and related treatment
centers, with terms generally ranging from five to ten years and provisions to
continue on a month-to-month basis following the initial term, unless terminated
for cause. In May 2009, we terminated the MSAs with a medical professional
corporation and a managed treatment center located in Dallas, Texas “for cause”
and because the Company had fully met its funding requirements with respect to
the MSAs. As a result, we no longer consolidate these entities as VIEs. In
connection with the termination of these MSAs, we determined that the carrying
value of certain assets was not recoverable and we recorded an impairment charge
totaling $151,000 during the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Under the
remaining MSA, we license to the treatment center the right to use our
proprietary treatment programs and related trademarks and provide all required
day-to-day business management services, including, but not limited
to:
●
|
general
administrative support services;
|
●
|
information
systems;
|
●
|
recordkeeping;
|
●
|
scheduling;
|
●
|
billing
and collection;
|
●
|
marketing
and local business development; and
|
●
|
obtaining
and maintaining all federal, state and local licenses, certifications and
regulatory permits
|
The
treatment center retains the sole right and obligation to provide medical
services to its patients and to make other medically related decisions, such as
the choice of medical professionals to hire or medical equipment to acquire and
the ordering of drugs.
In
addition, we provide medical office space to the treatment center on a
non-exclusive basis, and we are responsible for all costs associated with rent
and utilities. The treatment center pays us a monthly fee equal to the aggregate
amount of (a) our costs of providing management services (including reasonable
overhead allocable to the delivery of our services and including start-up costs
such as pre-operating salaries, rent, equipment, and tenant improvements
incurred for the benefit of the medical group, provided that any capitalized
costs will be amortized over a five year period), (b) 10%-15% of the foregoing
costs, and (c) any performance bonus amount, as determined by the treatment
center at its sole discretion. The treatment center’s payment of our fee is
subordinate to payment of the treatment center’s obligations, including
physician fees and medical group employee compensation.
We have
also agreed to provide a credit facility to the treatment center to be available
as a working capital loan, with interest at the Prime Rate plus 2%. Funds are
advanced pursuant to the terms of the MSA described above. The notes are due on
demand, or upon termination of the respective MSA. At September 30, 2009, there
was one outstanding credit facility under which $8.6 million was
outstanding. Our maximum exposure to loss could exceed this amount, and cannot
be quantified as it is contingent upon the amount of losses incurred by the
respective treatment center.
Under the
MSA, the equity owner of the affiliated treatment center has only a nominal
equity investment at risk, and we absorb or receive a majority of the entity’s
expected losses or expected residual returns. We participate significantly in
the design of the MSA. We also agree to provide working capital loans to allow
for the treatment center to pay for its obligations. Substantially all of the
activities of the managed medical corporations either involve
us or are
conducted for our benefit, as evidenced by the facts that (i) the operations of
the managed medical corporation are conducted primarily using our licensed
protocols and (ii) under the MSA, we agree to provide and perform all
non-medical management and administrative services for the respective the
treatment center. Payment of our management fee is subordinate to payments
of the obligations of the treatment center, and repayment of the working capital
loans is not guaranteed by the equity owner of the affiliated the treatment
center or other third party. Creditors of the managed medical corporations do
not have recourse to our general credit. Based on these facts, we have
determined that the managed medical corporations are VIEs and that we are the
primary beneficiary as defined in the current accounting rules. Accordingly, we
are required to consolidate the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of
the managed treatment centers.
The
amounts and classification of assets and liabilities of the VIEs included in our
Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 are as
follows:
September
30,
|
December
31,
|
|||||
(Dollars
in thousands)
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 1 | $ | 274 | ||
Receivables,
net
|
8 | 281 | ||||
Prepaids
and other current assets
|
- | 3 | ||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 9 | $ | 558 | ||
Accounts
payable
|
18 | $ | 30 | |||
Intercompany
loans
|
8,848 | 9,238 | ||||
Accrued
compensation and benefits
|
7 | 54 | ||||
Accrued
liabilities
|
14 | 13 | ||||
Total
liabilities
|
$ | 8,887 | $ | 9,335 |
Warrant
Liabilities
We have
issued warrants in connection with the registered direct placements of our
common stock in November 2007 and September 2009, and the amended and restated
Highbridge senior secured note in July 2008. The warrant agreements include
provisions that require us to record them as a liability, at fair value,
pursuant to FASB accounting rules, including provisions in some warrants that
protect the holders from declines in the Company’s stock price and a requirement
to deliver registered shares upon exercise, which is considered outside the
control of the Company. The warrant liabilities are marked-to-market each
reporting period and changes in fair value are recorded as a non-operating gain
or loss in our statement of operations, until they are completely settled or
expire. The fair value of the warrants is determined each reporting period using
the Black-Scholes option pricing model, and is affected by changes in inputs to
that model including our stock price, expected stock price volatility, interest
rates and expected term.
For the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, we recognized
gains/(losses) of ($4.8) million, ($4.7) million, $2.4 million and $5.7 million,
respectively, related to the revaluation of our warrant liabilities. The losses
in 2009 resulted mainly from a $5.4 million charge for anti-dilution adjustments
to 1.9 million warrants outstanding from the November 2007 registered direct
placement, triggered by the terms of the September 2009 registered direct
financing. The adjustment resulted in an increase to the number of warrant
outstanding totaling 12.4 million warrants and a decrease in the exercise price
from $5.75 to $0.75 per share, due to the relative lower offering price in the
September 2009 registered direct financing.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
Recently
Adopted
On
September 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to the
authoritative hierarchy of GAAP. These changes establish the FASB Accounting
Standards CodificationTM
(Codification) as the source of authoritative accounting principles recognized
by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of
financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Rules and interpretive releases of
the Securities and Exchange
Commission
(SEC) under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of
authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The FASB will no longer issue new
standards in the form of Statements, FASB Staff Positions, or Emerging Issues
Task Force Abstracts; instead the FASB will issue Accounting Standards Updates
(ASU). ASU’s will not be authoritative in their own right as they will only
serve to update the Codification. These changes and the Codification itself do
not change GAAP. Other than the manner in which new accounting guidance is
referenced, the adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated
financial statements.
On July
1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to accounting for and disclosure
of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial
statements are issued or are available to be issued, otherwise known as
“subsequent events.” Specifically, these changes set forth the period after the
balance sheet date during which management of a reporting entity should evaluate
events or transactions that may occur for potential recognition or disclosure in
the financial statements, the circumstances under which an entity should
recognize events or transactions occurring after the balance sheet date in its
financial statements, and the disclosures that an entity should make about
events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date. The adoption
of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements as
management already followed a similar approach prior to the adoption of this new
guidance. We have evaluated subsequent events through November 9, 2009, the
filing date of this quarterly report, and there is no material impact on to our
consolidated financial statements.
On
June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value
disclosures of financial instruments. These changes require a publicly traded
company to include disclosures about the fair value of its financial instruments
whenever it issues summarized financial information for interim reporting
periods. Such disclosures include the fair value of all financial instruments,
for which it is practicable to estimate that value, whether recognized or not
recognized in the statement of financial position; the related carrying amount
of these financial instruments; and the method(s) and significant assumptions
used to estimate the fair value. Other than the required disclosures (see above
“Fair Value
Measurements”), the adoption of these changes had no impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
On
June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value
accounting. These changes provide additional guidance for estimating fair value
when the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability have
significantly decreased and includes guidance for identifying circumstances that
indicate a transaction is not orderly. This guidance is necessary to maintain
the overall objective of fair value measurements, which is, that fair value is
the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a
liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the
measurement date under current market conditions. The adoption of these changes
had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On
June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to the recognition and
presentation of other-than-temporary impairments. These changes amend existing
other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities to make the
guidance more operational and to improve the presentation and disclosure of
other-than-temporary impairments on debt and equity securities. The adoption of
these changes had no impact on our consolidated statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to accounting for
business combinations. While retaining the fundamental requirements of
accounting for business combinations, including that the purchase method be used
for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each
business combination, these changes define the acquirer as the entity that
obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and
establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control
instead of the date that the consideration is transferred. These changes require
an acquirer in a business combination, including business combinations achieved
in stages (step acquisition), to recognize the assets acquired, liabilities
assumed, and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition
date, measured at their fair values as of that date, with limited exceptions.
This guidance also requires the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities
assumed arising from certain contractual contingencies as of the acquisition
date, measured at their acquisition-date fair values. Additionally, these
changes require acquisition-related costs to be expensed in the period in which
the costs are incurred and the services are received instead of including such
costs as part of the acquisition price. We have not engaged in any acquisitions
since this new guidance was issued, so there has been no impact to our
consolidated financial statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB in December 2007 to
accounting for business combinations. These changes apply to all assets acquired
and liabilities assumed in a business combination that arise from certain
contingencies and requires (i) an acquirer to recognize at fair value, at
the acquisition date, an asset acquired or liability assumed in a business
combination that arises from a contingency if the acquisition-date fair value of
that asset or liability can be determined during the measurement period
otherwise the asset or liability should be recognized at the acquisition date if
certain defined criteria are met; (ii) contingent consideration
arrangements of an acquiree assumed by the acquirer in a business combination be
recognized initially at fair value; (iii) subsequent measurements of assets
and liabilities arising from contingencies be based on a systematic and rational
method depending on their nature and contingent consideration arrangements be
measured subsequently; and (iv) disclosures of the amounts and measurement
basis of such assets and liabilities and the nature of the contingencies. We
have not engaged in any acquisitions since this new guidance was issued, so
there has been no impact to our consolidated financial statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to accounting for
intangible assets. These changes amend the factors that should be considered in
developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of
a recognized intangible asset in order to improve the consistency between the
useful life of a recognized intangible asset outside of a business combination
and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of an
intangible asset in a business combination. The adoption of these changes did
not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial
position or cash flows, and the required disclosures regarding our intangible
assets are included above under the heading Intangible
Assets.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to consolidation
accounting and reporting that establish accounting and reporting for the
non-controlling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. This guidance defines a non-controlling interest, previously called
a minority interest, as the portion of equity in a subsidiary not attributable,
directly or indirectly, to a parent. These changes require, among other items,
that a non-controlling interest be included in the consolidated balance sheet
within equity separate from the parent’s equity; consolidated net income to be
reported at amounts inclusive of both the parent’s and non-controlling
interest’s shares and, separately, the amounts of consolidated net income
attributable to the parent and non-controlling interest all on the consolidated
statement of operations; and if a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained
non-controlling equity investment in the former subsidiary be measured at fair
value and a gain or loss be recognized in net income based on such fair value.
The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value
accounting and reporting as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial
liabilities that are not recognized or disclosed at fair value in the
consolidated financial statements on at least an annual basis. These changes
define fair value, establish a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and
expand disclosures about fair value measurements. This guidance applies to other
GAAP that require or permit fair value measurements and is to be applied
prospectively with limited exceptions. The adoption of these changes, as it
relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, had no impact on
our consolidated financial statements. These provisions will be applied at such
time a fair value measurement of a nonfinancial asset or nonfinancial liability
is required, which may result in a fair value that is materially different than
would have been calculated prior to the adoption of these changes.
In
December 2008, the FASB issued changes requiring public entities to provide
additional disclosures about transfers of financial assets. It also requires
public entities to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with
VIEs. These changes were adopted for the Company's fiscal year ending December
31, 2008. We are required to consolidate the revenues and expenses of the
managed medical corporations. The financial results of managed treatment centers
are included in our consolidated financial statements under accounting standards
applicable to VIEs, and the required disclosures regarding our involvement with
VIEs are included above under the heading Variable Interest
Entities.
On April
1, 2009 we adopted changes issued by the FASB in June 2008 to provide guidance
in determining whether certain financial instruments (or embedded feature) are
considered to be “indexed to an entity’s own stock.” Existing guidance under
GAAP considers certain financial instruments to be outside the scope of
derivative accounting, specifying that a contract that would otherwise meet the
definition of a derivative but is both (a) indexed to the Company’s own
stock and (b) classified in stockholders’ equity in the statement of
financial position would not be considered a derivative financial instrument.
These changes provide a new two-step model to be applied in
determining
whether a financial instrument or an embedded feature is indexed to an entity’s
own stock and thus able to qualify for the derivative accounting scope
exception. These changes did not have any impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
Recently
Issued
In August
2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-15, which changes the fair value accounting for
liabilities. These changes clarify existing guidance that in circumstances in
which a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability is not
available, an entity is required to measure fair value using either a valuation
technique that uses a quoted price of either a similar liability or a quoted
price of an identical or similar liability when traded as an asset, or another
valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value
measurements, such as an income approach (e.g., present value technique). This
guidance also states that both a quoted price in an active market for the
identical liability and a quoted price for the identical liability when traded
as an asset in an active market when no adjustments to the quoted price of the
asset are required are Level 1 fair value measurements. This ASU is effective on
January 1, 2010. Adoption of this ASU will not have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In June
2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for variable interest entities.
These changes require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine whether
the enterprise’s variable interest or interests give it a controlling financial
interest in a variable interest entity; to require ongoing reassessments of
whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity;
to eliminate the quantitative approach previously required for determining the
primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity; to add an additional
reconsideration event for determining whether an entity is a variable interest
entity when any changes in facts and circumstances occur such that holders of
the equity investment at risk, as a group, lose the power from voting rights or
similar rights of those investments to direct the activities of the entity that
most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance; and to require
enhanced disclosures that will provide users of financial statements with more
transparent information about an enterprise’s involvement in a variable interest
entity. These changes become effective for us beginning on January 1, 2010.
The adoption of this change is not expected to have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In June
2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for transfers of financial
assets. These changes remove the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity
and remove the exception from the application of variable interest accounting to
variable interest entities that are qualifying special-purpose entities; limits
the circumstances in which a transferor derecognizes a portion or component of a
financial asset; defines a participating interest; requires a transferor to
recognize and initially measure at fair value all assets obtained and
liabilities incurred as a result of a transfer accounted for as a sale; and
requires enhanced disclosure; among others. These changes will become effective
for us on January 1, 2010.
Note
3. Segment Information
We manage
and report our operations through two business segments: Behavioral Health and
Healthcare Services. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009,
we revised our segments to reflect the disposal of CompCare (see Note 5, Discontinued Operations), and
to properly reflect how our segments are currently managed. Our behavioral
health managed care services segment, which had been comprised entirely of the
operations of CompCare, is now presented in discontinued operations and is not a
reportable segment. The Healthcare Services segment has been segregated into
Behavioral Health, which includes our Catasys programs, and Healthcare Services.
Prior years have been restated to reflect this revised
presentation.
Behavioral
Health
Catasys’s
integrated substance dependence solution combines innovative medical and
psychosocial treatments with elements of traditional disease management and
ongoing member support to help organizations treat and manage substance
dependent populations to impact both the medical and behavioral health costs
associated with substance dependence and the related
co-morbidities.
We are
currently marketing our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions to
managed care health plans for reimbursement on a case rate or monthly fee, which
involves educating third party payors on the disproportionately high cost of
their substance dependent population and demonstrating the potential for
improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost associated with using our Catasys
programs.
Healthcare
Services
Our
Healthcare Services segment is focused on delivering solutions for those
suffering from alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine and other substance
dependencies by researching, developing, licensing and commercializing
innovative physiological, nutritional, and behavioral treatment programs.
Treatment with our PROMETA Treatment Programs, which integrate behavioral,
nutritional, and medical components, are available through physicians and other
licensed treatment providers who have entered into licensing agreements with us
for the use of our treatment programs. Also included in this segment is a
licensed and managed treatment center, which offers a range of addiction
treatment services, including the PROMETA Treatment Programs for dependencies on
alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamines.
Our
healthcare services segment also comprises results from international operations
in the prior periods; however, these operating segments are not separately
reported as they did not meet any of the quantitative thresholds under current
accounting rules regarding segment disclosures.
We
evaluate segment performance based on total assets, revenue and income or loss
before provision for income taxes. Our assets are included within each discrete
reporting segment. In the event that any services are provided to one reporting
segment by the other, the transactions are valued at the market price. No such
services were provided during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009
and 2008. Summary financial information for our two reportable segments is as
follows:
Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | ||||||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
September 30, | September 30, | |||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
Healthcare
services
|
|||||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$ | 268 | $ | 1,258 | $ | 1,346 | $ | 5,295 | |||||||
Loss
before provision for income taxes
|
(7,978 | ) | (4,974 | ) | (17,963 | ) | (21,517 | ) | |||||||
Assets
*
|
20,834 | 43,587 | 20,834 | 43,587 | |||||||||||
Behavioral
health
|
|||||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | |||||||
Loss
before provision for income taxes
|
(861 | ) | (1,438 | ) | (3,187 | ) | (4,092 | ) | |||||||
Assets
*
|
- | 1,114 | - | 1,114 | |||||||||||
Consolidated
continuing operations
|
|||||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$ | 268 | $ | 1,258 | $ | 1,346 | $ | 5,295 | |||||||
Loss
before provision for income taxes
|
(8,839 | ) | (6,412 | ) | (21,150 | ) | (25,609 | ) | |||||||
Assets
*
|
20,834 | 44,701 | 20,834 | 44,701 | |||||||||||
*
Assets are reported as of September 30.
|
Note
4. Debt Outstanding
On August
11, 2009, we amended our amended and restated senior secured note with
Highbridge International LLC (Highbridge), to extend the maturity date from
January 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010, and Highbridge agreed to give up its optional
redemption rights. We also committed to exercising our right to sell our
ARS in accordance with the terms of the rights offering by UBS, who sold them to
us, and use the proceeds from the sale to redeem the note. If we borrow or
raise capital, we will use all or a portion of the funds raised to redeem the
note at 110%. We also amended all 1.8 million warrants that had been
previously issued to Highbridge to purchase shares of our
common
stock (including 1.3 million issued in conjunction with the amended and restated
note in 2008 and 540,000 issued in conjunction with the November 2007 registered
direct financing), to change the exercise price to $0.28 per share, and extend
the expiration date to five years from the amendment date.
Pursuant
to accounting rules regarding debtor’s accounting for modification
or Exchange of Debt Instruments, the amended note was not considered to
have substantially different terms and was accounted for in the same manner as a
debt extinguishment. The incremental fair value of the amended warrants compared
to the original warrants, treated as consideration granted by us for the
amendment, amounted to $276,000 on the date of amendment and was accounted for
as a discount to the note and is being amortized to interest expense over the
remaining contractual maturity period of the amended debt.
During
the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we drew down additional proceeds under
the UBS line of credit facility, and used the proceeds to pay down the principal
balance on our senior secured note with Highbridge International LLC. We made an
additional $318,000 pay-down on the senior secured note in September 2009, using
proceeds that we received from the registered direct stock financing that was
completed in the same month. We recognized losses of $54,000 and $330,000,
respectively, on extinguishment of debt resulting from these pay-downs for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009.
In August
2009, we paid down $1.3 million on the UBS line of credit, using 100% of the
proceeds received from the sale of certain ARS. Our UBS line of credit and our
senior secured note are both collateralized by the ARS, which had a carrying
value of $9.2 million at September 30, 2009. The following table shows the total
principal amount, related interest rates and maturities of debt outstanding, as
of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008:
September
30,
|
December
31,
|
|||||
(dollars
in thousands, except where otherwise noted)
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||
Short-term
Debt
|
||||||
Senior
secured note due July 15, 2010; interest payable quarterly at
prime
|
||||||
plus
2.5% (5.75% and 7.0% at September 30, 2009 and December 31,
|
||||||
2008,
respectively, $3,332,000 principal net of $210,000 unamortized
|
||||||
discount
at September 30, 2009 and $5,000,000 principal net of
|
||||||
$899,000
unamortized discount at December 31, 2008
|
$ | 3,122 | $ | 4,101 | ||
UBS
line of credit, payable on demand, interest payable monthly at
91-day
|
||||||
T-bill
rate plus 120 basis points (1.282% at September 30, 2009 and
|
||||||
1.675%
at December 31, 2008)
|
6,460 | 5,734 | ||||
Total
Short-term Debt
|
$ | 9,582 | $ | 9,835 |
Note
5. Discontinued Operations
On
January 20, 2009, we sold our interest in CompCare, in which we had acquired a
controlling interest in January 2007 for $1.5 million cash. The CompCare
operations are now presented as discontinued operations in accordance with
accounting rules related to the disposal of long-lived assets. Prior to
this sale, the assets and results of operations related to CompCare had
constituted our behavioral health managed care services segment. See note 3,
Segment Information,
for an updated discussion of our business segments after the sale of
CompCare.
We
recognized a gain of approximately $11.2 million from this sale, which is
included in income from discontinued operations in our Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The revenues and
expenses of discontinued operations for the period January 1 through January 20,
2009 and the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 are as
follows:
Period
from
|
Three
Months
|
Nine
Months
|
|||||||||
January
1 to
|
Ended
|
Ended
|
|||||||||
January
20,
|
September
30,
|
September
30,
|
|||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
2009
|
2008
|
2008
|
||||||||
Revenues:
|
|||||||||||
Behavioral
managed health care revenues
|
$ | 710 | $ | 8,400 | $ | 27,315 | |||||
Expenses:
|
|||||||||||
Behavioral
managed health care operating expenses
|
$ | 703 | $ | 7,466 | $ | 28,912 | |||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
711 | 528 | 2,983 | ||||||||
Other
|
50 | 269 | 867 | ||||||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations before
|
|
||||||||||
provision
for income tax
|
$ | (754 | ) | $ | 137 | $ | (5,447 | ) | |||
Provision
for income taxes
|
$ | 1 | $ | (4 | ) | $ | 2 | ||||
Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
$ | (755 | ) | $ | 141 | $ | (5,449 | ) | |||
Gain
on sale
|
$ | 11,204 | $ | - | $ | - | |||||
Results
from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
$ | 10,449 | $ | 141 | $ | (5,449 | ) |
The
carrying amount of the assets and liabilities of discontinued operations at
December 31, 2008 and on the date of the sale were as follows:
January 20, |
December
31,
|
||||||
(in
thousands)
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 523 | $ | 1,138 | |||
Receivables,
net
|
- | 1,580 | |||||
Notes
receivable
|
- | 17 | |||||
Prepaids
and other current assets
|
940 | 318 | |||||
Property
and equipment, net
|
230 | 235 | |||||
Goodwill,
net
|
403 | 493 | |||||
Intangible
assets, net
|
608 | 642 | |||||
Deposits
and other assets
|
230 | 234 | |||||
Total
Assets
|
$ | 2,934 | $ | 4,657 | |||
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
$ | 2,065 | $ | 1,884 | |||
Accrued
claims payable
|
5,637 | 6,791 | |||||
Long-term
debt
|
2,346 | 2,341 | |||||
Accrued
reinsurance claims payable
|
2,527 | 2,526 | |||||
Capital
lease obligations, net of current portion
|
63 | 63 | |||||
Total
Liabilities
|
$ | 12,638 | $ | 13,605 | |||
Net
liabilities of discontinued operations
|
$ | (9,704 | ) | $ | (8,948 | ) |
Item
2. Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
The
following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should
be read in conjunction with our financial statements including the related
notes, and the other financial information included in this report. For ease of
reference, “we,” “us” or “our” refer to Hythiam, Inc., our wholly-owned
subsidiaries and our managed treatment center unless otherwise
stated.
CAUTIONARY
STATEMENT CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This
report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the financial
condition, results of operations, business strategies, operating efficiencies or
synergies, competitive positions, growth opportunities for existing products,
plans and objectives of management, markets for stock of Hythiam and other
matters. Statements in this report that are not historical facts are hereby
identified as “forward-looking statements” for the purpose of the safe harbor
provided by Section 21E of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933. Such forward-looking statements, including, without
limitation, those relating to the future business prospects, revenue and income
of Hythiam, wherever they occur, are necessarily estimates reflecting the best
judgment of the senior management of Hythiam on the date on which they were
made, or if no date is stated, as of the date of this report. These
forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions,
including those described in the “Risk Factors” in Item 1 of Part I of our most
recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC, that may affect the
operations, performance, development and results of our business. Because the
factors discussed in this report could cause actual results or outcomes to
differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by
us or on our behalf, you should not place undue reliance on any such
forward-looking statements. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not
possible for us to predict which factors will arise. In addition, we cannot
assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any
factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially
from those contained in any forward-looking statements.
OVERVIEW
General
We are a
healthcare services management company, providing through our Catasys
subsidiary behavioral health management services for substance abuse to
health plans, employers and unions. Catasys is focused on offering integrated
substance dependence solutions, including medical interventions such as our
patented PROMETA® Treatment
Program, for alcoholism and stimulant dependence. The PROMETA Treatment Program,
which integrates behavioral, nutritional, and medical components, is also
available on a private-pay basis through licensed treatment providers and a
company-managed treatment center that offers the PROMETA Treatment Program, as
well as other treatments for substance dependencies.
Segment
Reporting
We
currently operate within two reportable segments: Healthcare services and
Behavioral Health. Our healthcare services segment focuses on providing
licensing, administrative and management services to licensees that administer
PROMETA and other treatment programs, including the managed treatment center
that is licensed and managed by us. Our Behavioral Health segment, through
our Catasys subsidiary, combines innovative medical and psychosocial treatments
with elements of traditional disease management and ongoing member support to
help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations, and is
designed to lower both the medical and behavioral health costs associated with
substance dependence and the related co-morbidities. Currently,
substantially all of our revenue from continuing operations and substantially
all of our assets are earned or located within the United States.
Discontinued
Operations
On
January 20, 2009 we sold our entire interest in our controlled subsidiary
CompCare for aggregate gross proceeds of $1.5 million. We recognized a
gain of approximately $11.2 million from the sale of our CompCare interest,
which is included in Results of Discontinued Operations in our Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2009.
Additionally, we entered into an administrative services only
(ASO)
agreement
with CompCare to provide certain administrative services under CompCare’s
National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) accreditation, including but not
limited to case management and authorization services, in support of our newly
launched specialty products and programs for autism and ADHD.
Prior to
the sale, we reported the operations of CompCare in our behavioral health
managed care segment. For detailed information regarding the impact of the sale
of our interest in CompCare, see our consolidated financial statements and Note
5, Discontinued
Operations, included with this report.
Operations
Healthcare
Services
Licensing
Operations
Under our
licensing agreements, we provide physicians and other licensed treatment
providers access to our PROMETA Treatment Program, education and training in the
implementation and use of the licensed technology. The patient’s physician
determines the appropriateness of the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program. We
receive
a fee for
the licensed technology and related services generally on a per patient basis.
As of September 30, 2009, we had active licensing agreements with physicians,
hospitals and treatment providers for 62 sites throughout the United States,
with 24 sites contributing to revenue in 2009. We will continue to enter
into agreements on a selective basis with additional healthcare providers to
increase the availability of the PROMETA Treatment Program, generally in markets
we are presently operating or where such sites will provide support for our
Catasys products. As such revenues are generally related to the number of
patients treated, key indicators of our financial performance for the PROMETA
Treatment Program will be the number of facilities and healthcare providers that
license our technology, and the number of patients that are treated by those
providers using our PROMETA Treatment Program. As discussed below in Recent Developments, we have
reduced resources allocated to licensing activities and are currently evaluating
and considering additional actions to streamline our operations that may impact
the licensing operations.
Managed
Treatment Center
We
currently manage one treatment center under our licensing agreement, located in
Santa Monica, California (dba The Center to Overcome Addiction, formerly named the PROMETA
Center). In May 2009, we terminated the Management Services Agreements
(“MSA”) with a medical professional corporation and a managed treatment center
in Dallas, Texas. We manage the business components of the Center to Overcome
Addiction and license the PROMETA Treatment Program and use of the name in
exchange for management and licensing fees under the terms of a full business
service management agreement. This center offers treatment with the PROMETA
Treatment Program for dependencies on alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamines and
also offer medical interventions for other substance dependencies and
psychiatric services. The revenues and expenses of this center are included in
our consolidated financial statements under accounting standards applicable
to variable interest entities. Revenues from licensed and managed treatment
centers, including the Center to Overcome Addiction, accounted for approximately
54% and 56% of our healthcare services revenues for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2009, respectively. As discussed below in Recent Developments, we are
currently evaluating and considering additional actions to streamline our
operations that may impact our managed treatment center.
Behavioral
Health
Beginning
in 2007, we developed our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions for
third-party payors. We believe that our Catasys offerings will address a high
cost segment of the healthcare market for substance dependence, and we are
currently marketing our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions to
managed care health plans on a case rate or monthly fee, which involves
educating third party payors on the disproportionately high cost of their
substance dependent population and demonstrating the potential for improved
clinical outcomes and reduced cost associated with using our Catasys programs.
In addition, we may be launching other specialty behavioral health products and
programs, including Autism and ADHD, that can leverage our existing
infrastructure and sales force, but this effort is largely on hold due to
current budget constraints.
Recent
Developments
In
September 2009, we entered into a three-year agreement with Ford Motor Company
(Ford) to provide the Catasys Integrated
Substance Dependence Solution to Ford’s hourly employees in Michigan enrolled in
their ‘National PPO’ and who meet certain criteria. The Company will conduct
direct outreach to enroll qualified members, and will also work with UAW-Ford
and Ford’s EAP program to ensure the most beneficial treatment pathway for
members. Contractual revenues from the agreement are based on a combination of
monthly fees for the member population for Catasys, with additional monthly fees
for members enrolled into the Catasys program. Operational implementation began
immediately after signing, and the program is anticipated to launch late in the
fourth quarter of 2009.
In
September 2009, we completed a registered direct placement with select
institutional investors, in which we issued an aggregate of approximately
9,333,000 shares of common stock at a price of $0.75 per share, for gross
proceeds of approximately $7 million. We also issued three-year warrants to
purchase an aggregate of approximately 2,333,000 additional shares of our common
stock at an exercise price of $0.85 per share. We incurred approximately
$883,000 in fees to placement agents and other transaction costs in connection
with the transaction.
In August
2009, Dr. Anton’s study on alcohol dependent subjects, entitled “Efficacy of a
Combination of Flumazenil and Gabapenton in the Treatment of Alcohol
Dependence”, was published in the August issue of Journal of Clinical
Psychopharmacology. The study was conducted at the Medical University of South
Carolina, and among the researchers’ findings were that key results demonstrated
a statistically significant difference in use for subjects who exhibited
pre-treatment withdrawal symptoms. The results are the first to be published in
a peer-reviewed scientific journal from a double-blind, placebo-controlled study
conducted to assess the impact of the PROMETA Treatment Program on alcohol
dependence.
In the
first three quarters of 2009, we took further actions to streamline our
operations and increase the focus on managed care opportunities, which included
significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel and related
corporate support personnel, curtailment of our international operations, a
reduction in outside consultant expense, termination of a clinical study and
overall reductions in overhead and payroll costs. Additionally, we renegotiated
certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more favorable pricing and to
restructure payment terms with vendors, which included negotiating settlements
for outstanding liabilities. In addition, we terminated the MSAs with a medical
professional corporation and a managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas “for
cause” and because the Company had met its funding requirement with respect to
such MSAs. These efforts have resulted in delays and reductions in operating
expenses, resulting in additional annual savings in operating expenses of
approximately $5.7 million.
How
We Measure Our Results
Our
healthcare services revenues to date have been primarily generated from fees
that we charge to hospitals, healthcare facilities and other healthcare
providers that license our PROMETA Treatment Program, and from patient service
revenues related to our licensing and MSAs with managed treatment centers. Our
technology license and MSAs usually provide for an initial fee for training and
other start-up related costs, plus a combined fee for the licensed technology
and other related services, generally set on a per-treatment basis, and thus a
substantial portion of our revenues is closely related to the number of patients
treated. Patients treated by managed treatment centers generate higher average
revenues per PROMETA patient than our other licensed sites due to consolidation
of their gross patient revenues in our financial statements. Key indicators of
our financial performance will be the number of health plans and other
organizations that contract with us for our Catasys products, the number of
managed care members enrolled in such programs, our ability to demonstrate the
cost savings of our Catasys programs,, and the number of facilities and
healthcare providers that contract with us to license our technology and the
number of patients that are treated by those providers using the PROMETA
Treatment Program. Additionally, our financial results will depend on our
ability to expand the adoption of Catasys and the PROMETA Treatment Program, and
our ability to effectively price these products, and manage general,
administrative and other operating costs.
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
Table
of Summary Consolidated Financial Information
The table
below and the discussion that follows summarize our results of consolidated
continuing operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and
2008:
Three
Months Ended
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||||
(In
thousands, except per share amounts)
|
September
30,
|
September
30,
|
|||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
Revenues
|
|||||||||||||||
Healthcare
services
|
$ | 268 | $ | 1,258 | $ | 1,346 | $ | 5,295 | |||||||
Total
revenues
|
268 | 1,258 | 1,346 | 5,295 | |||||||||||
Operating
expenses
|
|||||||||||||||
Cost
of healthcare services
|
$ | 68 | $ | 330 | $ | 502 | $ | 1,335 | |||||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
3,878 | 9,351 | 14,007 | 29,466 | |||||||||||
Research
and development
|
- | 713 | - | 2,986 | |||||||||||
Impairment
losses
|
- | - | 1,113 | - | |||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
273 | 510 | 979 | 1,419 | |||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
4,219 | 10,904 | 16,601 | 35,206 | |||||||||||
Loss
from operations
|
$ | (3,951 | ) | $ | (9,646 | ) | $ | (15,255 | ) | $ | (29,911 | ) | |||
Non-operating
income (expenses)
|
|||||||||||||||
Interest
& other income
|
19 | 113 | 142 | 738 | |||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(221 | ) | (637 | ) | (999 | ) | (1,149 | ) | |||||||
Loss
on extinguishment of debt
|
(54 | ) | - | (330 | ) | - | |||||||||
Gain
on the sale of marketable securities
|
160 | - | 160 | - | |||||||||||
Other
than temporary impairment of
|
|||||||||||||||
marketablesecurities
|
(25 | ) | - | (185 | ) | - | |||||||||
Change
in fair value of warrant liabilities
|
(4,767 | ) | 3,758 | (4,683 | ) | 4,713 | |||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations before
|
|||||||||||||||
provision
for income taxes
|
(8,839 | ) | (6,412 | ) | (21,150 | ) | (25,609 | ) | |||||||
Provision
for income taxes
|
3 | 6 | 13 | 23 | |||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$ | (8,842 | ) | $ | (6,418 | ) | $ | (21,163 | ) | $ | (25,632 | ) |
Summary
of Consolidated Operating Results
As we
continue to streamline our operations and increase the focus on managed care
opportunities, actions we have taken to reduce expenses have led to continued
declines in loss from operations in our continuing operations, compared to the
prior year. Our decision to exit markets that were not profitable and make
significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel in our licensing
operations, the curtailment of our managed treatment center operations
(including terminating the management services agreements associated with our
managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas) and the shut-down of our
international operations have resulted in lower revenues compared to the prior
year.
Loss from
continuing operations for the three months ended September 30, 2009 amounted to
$8.8 million compared to $6.4 million in the same period in 2008. Excluding the
change in fair value of warrant liabilities, which amounted to a loss of $4.8
million in 2009 compared to a gain of $3.8 million in 2008, the loss from
continuing operations declined by $6.2 million. The improvement was driven by a
$5.5 million decrease in general and administrative expenses, from the
streamlining of operations as discussed above, a $713,000 decrease in
research
and
development costs, a $416,000 decrease in interest expense, a $262,000 decrease
in cost of healthcare services and a $160,000 gain on the sale of marketable
securities. These improvements were partially offset by the $990,000 decline in
revenues.
Loss from
continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 amounted to
$21.2 million compared to $25.6 million in the same period in 2008. Excluding
the change in fair value of warrant liabilities, which amounted to a loss of
$4.7 million in 2009 compared to a gain of $4.7 million in 2008, the loss from
continuing operations declined by $13.8 million. The improvement was driven by a
$15.5 million decrease in general and administrative expenses, from the
streamlining of operations as discussed above, a $3.0 million decrease in
research and development costs, a $833,000 decrease in cost of healthcare
services and a $160,000 gain on the sale of marketable securities. These
improvements were partially offset by the $3.9 million decline in revenues, $1.1
million in asset impairment charges, $330,000 of losses on extinguishment in
debt and $160,000 in impairment charges for marketable securities.
Also
included in the loss from continuing operations were consolidated non-cash
charges for depreciation and amortization, debt discount amortization and
stock-based compensation expense totaling $1.4 million and $5.2 million for
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively, compared to $3.6
million and $9.0 million for the same periods in 2008,
respectively.
Reconciliation
of Segment Results
The
following table summarizes and reconciles the loss before provision for income
taxes of our reportable segments in continuing operations to the loss for
continuing operations before provision for income taxes from our consolidated
statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009
and 2008:
Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | ||||||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
September 30, | September 30, | |||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
Healthcare
services
|
$ | (7,978 | ) | $ | (4,974 | ) | $ | (17,963 | ) | $ | (21,517 | ) | |||
Behavioral
health
|
(861 | ) | (1,438 | ) | (3,187 | ) | (4,092 | ) | |||||||
Loss
from continuing operations before
|
|||||||||||||||
provision
for income taxes
|
$ | (8,839 | ) | $ | (6,412 | ) | $ | (21,150 | ) | $ | (25,609 | ) |
Healthcare
Services
The
following table summarizes the operating results for healthcare services for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
Three
Months Ended
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||||
(In
thousands, except patient treatment data)
|
September
30,
|
September
30,
|
|||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
Revenues
|
|||||||||||||||
U.S.
licensees
|
$ | 123 | $ | 527 | $ | 459 | $ | 2,514 | |||||||
Managed
treatment centers (a)
|
145 | 533 | 753 | 1,621 | |||||||||||
Other
revenues
|
- | 198 | 134 | 1,160 | |||||||||||
Total
healthcare services revenues
|
$ | 268 | $ | 1,258 | $ | 1,346 | $ | 5,295 | |||||||
Operating
expenses
|
|||||||||||||||
Cost
of healthcare services
|
$ | 68 | $ | 330 | $ | 502 | $ | 1,335 | |||||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
|||||||||||||||
Salaries
and benefits
|
899 | 2,464 | 5,285 | 12,736 | |||||||||||
Other
expenses
|
2,118 | 5,449 | 6,376 | 12,638 | |||||||||||
Research
and development
|
- | 713 | - | 2,986 | |||||||||||
Impairment
losses
|
- | - | 355 | 447 | |||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
273 | 510 | 896 | 973 | |||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
$ | 3,358 | $ | 9,466 | $ | 13,414 | $ | 31,115 | |||||||
Loss
from operations
|
$ | (3,090 | ) | $ | (8,208 | ) | $ | (12,068 | ) | $ | (25,820 | ) | |||
Interest
and other income
|
19 | 113 | 142 | 738 | |||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(221 | ) | (637 | ) | (999 | ) | (1,149 | ) | |||||||
Loss
on extinguishment of debt
|
(54 | ) | - | (330 | ) | - | |||||||||
Gain
on the sale of marketable securities
|
160 | - | 160 | - | |||||||||||
Other
than temporary impairment on marketable securities
|
(25 | ) | - | (185 | ) | - | |||||||||
Change
in fair value of warrant liabilities
|
(4,767 | ) | 3,758 | (4,683 | ) | 4,714 | |||||||||
Loss
before provision for income taxes
|
$ | (7,978 | ) | $ | (4,974 | ) | $ | (17,963 | ) | $ | (21,517 | ) | |||
PROMETA
patients treated
|
|||||||||||||||
U.S.
licensees
|
24 | 93 | 96 | 435 | |||||||||||
Managed
treatment centers (a)
|
22 | 33 | 78 | 117 | |||||||||||
Other
|
- | 8 | 11 | 60 | |||||||||||
46 | 134 | 185 | 612 | ||||||||||||
Average revenue
per patient treated (b)
|
|||||||||||||||
U.S.
licensees
|
$ | 4,435 | $ | 5,352 | $ | 4,298 | $ | 5,643 | |||||||
Managed
treatment centers (a)
|
4,206 | 9,033 | 5,957 | 9,586 | |||||||||||
Other
|
- | 7,786 | 12,185 | 8,324 | |||||||||||
Overall
average
|
4,326 | 6,404 | 5,466 | 6,659 | |||||||||||
(a)
Includes managed and/or licensed PROMETA Centers.
|
|||||||||||||||
(b)
The average revenue per patient treated excludes administrative fees and
other non-PROMETA patient revenues.
|
Revenue
Revenue
decreased by $990,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2009 compared to
the same period in 2008, primarily due to our decision to streamline our
operations and focus on managed care opportunities in our Behavioral Health
segment. We exited unprofitable markets and made significant reductions in field
and regional sales personnel in our licensing operations, curtailed our managed
treatment center operations (including terminating the management services
agreements associated with our managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas) and
shut-down our international operations. These actions resulted in a decline in
licensed sites contributing to revenue and in the
number of
patients treated. The number of licensed sites that contributed to revenues
decreased from 36 to 14 and the number of patients treated decreased by 66% for
the three months ended September 30, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008.
The average revenue per patient treated at U.S. licensed sites and managed
treatment centers decreased during the three months ended September 30, 2009
compared to the same period in 2008 due to higher average discounts granted
because of the economic downturn.
Revenue
decreased by $3.9 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009 compared
to the same period in 2008, consistent with the discussion above relating to our
decision to streamline our operations and focus on managed care opportunities.
The number of licensed sites that contributed to revenues on a year-to-date
basis decreased from 50 to 24 and the number of patients treated decreased by
70% for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, compared to the same period in
2008. The average revenue per patient treated at U.S. licensed sites and managed
treatment centers decreased during the nine months ended September 30, 2009
compared to the same period in 2008, due to higher average discounts granted
because of the economic downturn. Our revenue may be further impacted in the
fourth quarter of 2009 by market conditions due to the uncertain economy,
impacting both the number of treatments and the average revenue per patient, and
also as we maintain our commitment to reduce operating expenses in components of
healthcare services that are revenue-generating, but unprofitable.
Cost
of Healthcare Services
Cost of
healthcare services consists of royalties we pay for the use of the PROMETA
Treatment Program, and costs incurred by our consolidated managed treatment
centers for direct labor costs for physicians and nursing staff, continuing care
expense, medical supplies and treatment program medicine costs. The decrease in
these costs primarily reflects the decrease in revenues from these treatment
centers.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General
and administrative expense includes share-based compensation expense and
costs associated with streamlining our operations, which amounted to $1.0
million and $1,000, respectively, for the three months ended September 30, 2009,
compared to $2.8 million and $200,000, respectively for the same period in 2008.
Excluding such costs, total general and administrative expense decreased by $2.9
million in 2009 when compared to 2008, due to reductions in all expense
categories, but mainly to decreases in salaries and benefits and outside
services, resulting from the continued streamlining of operations to focus on
managed care opportunities in our Behavioral Health segment.
For the
nine months ended September 30, 2009, share-based compensation expense and
costs associated with streamlining our operations totaled $3.5 million and
$275,000, respectively, compared to $7.0 million and $2.6 million,
respectively for the same period in 2008. Excluding such costs, total general
and administrative expense decreased by $7.9 million in 2009 when compared
to 2008, due to reductions in all categories, but mainly to decreases
in salaries and benefits and outside services, resulting from the continued
streamlining of operations.
Research
and Development
Clinical
studies undertaken in 2008 and prior years were substantially completed in 2008
and no research and development expense was recognized during the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2009. In addition, we agreed to terminate funding for
the grant that supported the Cedar Sinai research study on alcohol-dependent
subjects as the site had been unable to recruit patients with the desired
clinical profile in a timely manner and in light of the two additional alcohol
studies that had been completed. Such expenses totaled $713,000 and $3.0 million
for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008.
Impairment
Losses
Impairment
charges for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 included $122,000 for
assets related to the managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas, when we
terminated the management services agreement and $233,000 for intellectual
property related to additional indications for the use of the PROMETA Treatment
Program that are currently non-revenue-generating, both of which resulted from
impairment testing at March 31, 2009. See additional information below under the
heading “Critical Accounting Estimates -- Impairment of Intangible
Assets.”
Interest
and Other Income
Interest
and other income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009
decreased by $94,000 and $596,000, respectively, compared to the same periods in
2008 due to decreases in the invested balance of marketable securities and a
decrease in interest rates.
Interest
Expense
Interest
expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 decreased by
$416,000 and $150,000, respectively, compared to the same periods in 2008 due to
lower average debt balances on both the Highbridge note and UBS line of credit,
partially offset by the effect of lower interest rates during this same
period.
Losses
from Extinguishment of Debt
We
recognized $54,000 and $330,000 in losses on extinguishment of debt for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 resulting from pay-downs of $1.4
million and $318,000 on the Highbridge senior secured note in February and
September 2009, respectively. Such losses included accelerated amortization of
debt discount of $22,000 and $208,000 for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2009, respectively..
Gain
on the Sale of Marketable Securities
In August 2009,
$1.1 million of our auction rate securities (ARS) was redeemed at par by
the issuer, resulting in proceeds of approximately $1.3 million and a gain of
approximately $160,000.
Other
than Temporary Impairment on Marketable Securities
Impairment
charges of $25,000 and $185,000 related to certain of our ARS were recognized
for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009. The charges
were based on valuations of the securities performed by management at each
balance sheet reporting date in 2009, including September 30, 2009, and were
deemed necessary after an analysis of other-than-temporary impairment factors,
most notably, the likelihood that we will be required to sell the ARS before
they recover in value.
Change
in fair value of warrant liabilities
We issued
warrants in connection with our registered direct stock placements completed in
November 2007 and September 2009, and the amended and restated Highbridge
senior secured note in July 2008. The warrants are being accounted for as
liabilities in accordance with FASB accounting rules, due to provisions in some
warrants that protect the holders from declines in the Company’s stock price and
a requirement to deliver registered shares upon exercise of the warrants, which
is considered outside the control of the Company. The warrants are
marked-to-market each reporting period, using the Black-Scholes pricing model,
until they are completely settled or expire.
The
change in fair value of the warrants amounted to net losses of $4.8 million and
$4.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009,
respectively, compared to net gains of $3.8 million and $4.7 million for the
same periods in 2008, respectively. The losses in 2009 resulted mainly from a
$5.4 million charge in September 2009 for anti-dilution adjustments to 1.9
million warrants outstanding from the November 2007 registered direct placement
that were triggered by the September 2009 registered direct financing. Due to
the relative lower offering price in the September 2009 registered direct
financing, the adjustment resulted in an increase to the number of warrant
outstanding totaling 12.4 million warrants and a decrease in the exercise price
from $5.75 to $0.75 per share.
The
following table summarizes the operating results for Behavioral Health for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
(in thousands) | September 30, | September 30, | ||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||
Operating
Expenses
|
||||||||||||||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
||||||||||||||||
Salaries
and benefits
|
$ | 773 | $ | 963 | $ | 1,983 | $ | 2,059 | ||||||||
Other
expenses
|
88 | 475 | 363 | 2,033 | ||||||||||||
Impairment
charges
|
- | - | 758 | - | ||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
- | - | 83 | - | ||||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
$ | 861 | $ | 1,438 | $ | 3,187 | $ | 4,092 | ||||||||
Loss
before provision for income taxes
|
$ |
(861
|
) | $ | (1,438 | ) | $ | (3,187 | ) | $ | (4,092 | ) |
Revenues
Operational
implementation of the Ford contract began immediately after signing, and the
program is anticipated to launch late in the fourth quarter of 2009. Revenue
recognized in the fourth quarter is not expected to be material. Contractual
revenues from the agreement are based on a combination of monthly fees for the
member population for Catasys, with additional monthly fees for members enrolled
into the Catasys program.
General
and Administrative Expenses
Total
general and administrative expenses decreased by $577,000 in the three months
ended September 30, 2009 when compared to the same period in 2008, due mainly to
a $264,000 reduction in consulting and outside services expense, a $190,000
decrease in salaries and a $123,000 decline in other general
expenses.
Total
general and administrative expenses decreased by $1.7 million in the nine months
ended September 30, 2009 when compared to the same period in 2008, due mainly to
a $1.3 million reduction in consulting and outside services expense and a
$419,000 decline in other general expenses.
Impairment
Losses
An
impairment charge of $758,000 was recognized during the nine months ended
September 30, 2009 related to capitalized software for our Behavioral Health
segment. As part of our quarterly impairment analysis, we determined as of March
31, 2009 that the carrying value was not recoverable and was fully
impaired.
Depreciation
and Amortization
Depreciation
and amortization for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009
consisted of depreciation of the capitalized software prior to the impairment
discussed above. There was no depreciation during the same periods in 2008 as
the asset had not yet been placed in service.
Liquidity
and Going Concern
As of
September 30, 2009, we had a balance of approximately $7.1 million in cash and
cash equivalents and we had working capital of approximately $1.9 million. Our
working capital is impacted by $9.2 million of ARS that are currently
illiquid. We have incurred significant net losses and negative
operating cash flows since our inception. During the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2009, our cash and cash equivalents used in operating activities
amounted to $2.6 million and $12.0 million, respectively. We expect to continue
to incur negative cash flows and net losses for at least the next twelve months.
As of September 30, 2009, these conditions raised substantial doubt from our
auditors as to our ability to continue as a going concern.
Our
ability to fund our ongoing operations and continue as a going concern is
dependent on raising additional capital, signing and generating revenue from new
contracts for our Catasys managed care programs and the success of
management’s plans to increase revenue and continue to decrease expenses.
Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, and continuing in each of the quarter
during 2009, management has taken actions that we expect will result in
reducing annual operating expenses by a total of approximately $15.9 million,
compared to the third quarter of 2008, including $10.2 million from actions
taken in the fourth quarter of 2008 and $5.7 million from further actions taken
in the first three quarters of 2009. The actions we took included elimination of
certain positions in our licensee and managed treatment center operations and
related corporate support personnel, curtailment of our international
operations, a reduction in certain support and occupancy costs, a reduction in
outside consultant expense and overall reductions in overhead costs. In
addition, we took further actions in the first three-quarters of 2009 to
streamline our operations and increase the focus on managed care opportunities.
Also, we have renegotiated certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more
favorable pricing and to restructure payment terms. We have also negotiated and
plan to negotiate settlements for outstanding liabilities. We have exited
certain markets in our licensee operations that management has determined will
not provide short-term profitability. We may exit additional markets in our
licensee operations and further curtail or restructure our Company managed
treatment center to reduce costs or if management determines that those markets
will not provide short-term profitability. We do not expect the cost impact of
such actions to be material. In September 2009, we signed an agreement with
Ford® Motor
Company (Ford) to provide the Catasys integrated substance dependence solution
to Ford’s hourly employees in Michigan enrolled in the National PPO and who meet
certain criteria and we raised approximately $7 million in a registered direct
equity financing with select institutional investors. We are pursuing additional
new Catasys contracts and additional capital. As of October 31, 2009, we had net
cash on hand of approximately $6.1 million. Excluding short-term debt and
non-current accrued liability payments, our current plans call for expending
cash at a rate of approximately $650,000 per month. At presently anticipated
rates, which do not include management’s plans for additional cost reductions,
we will need to obtain additional funds within the next eleven to twelve months
to avoid drastically curtailing or ceasing our operations. We are currently in
discussions with third parties regarding financing. There can be no assurance
that we will be successful in our efforts to generate, increase, or maintain
revenue; or raise necessary funds on acceptable terms or at all, and we may not
be able to offset this by sufficient reductions in expenses and increases in
revenue. If this occurs, we may be unable to meet our cash obligations as they
become due and we may be required to further delay or reduce operating expenses
and curtail our operations, which would have a material adverse effect on us, or
we may be unable to continue as a going concern.
In
February 2008, the market for ARS effectively ceased when the vast majority of
auctions failed and prevented holders from selling their investments. Although
the securities are Aaa/AAA rated and collateralized by portfolios of student
loans guaranteed by the U.S. government, based on current market conditions it
is likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term,
limiting the liquidity of these investments until the issuer calls the
securities. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully
recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or
does not exist. In October 2008, UBS made a Rights offering to its clients,
pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all ARS held by us in our UBS
account. The rights offering permits us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a
price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning
on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012 if the securities are not
earlier redeemed or sold. We accepted this offer in November 2008. Because of
our ability to sell the ARS under the UBS rights offering, the ARS investments
have been classified in current assets at September 30, 2009. In August 2009,
$1.1 million of our ARS was redeemed at par by the issuer, resulting in proceeds
of approximately $1.3 million and a gain of approximately $160,000. As discussed
below in Capital Structure
& Financing Activities, all of the proceeds were used to pay down the
balance of the UBS line of credit facility.
As part
of the rights offering, UBS provided to us a line of credit equal to 75% of the
market value of the ARS until they are purchased by UBS. At September 30, 2009,
we had $6.5 million of outstanding borrowing under the UBS line of credit that
is payable on demand and is secured by the ARS. We granted Highbridge additional
redemption rights in connection with the amendment of the senior secured note
that would require us to use any margin loan proceeds in excess of $5.8 million
to pay down the principal amount of the senior secured note. The line of credit
has certain restrictions described in the prospectus.
Considering
the illiquid ARS market, the recent deterioration of overall market conditions
and our financial condition and near-term liquidity needs, we have concluded
that it is likely that we would need to sell our ARS before they would recover
in value and any decline in the fair value of ARS should be considered as
‘other-than-temporary’. Based on the current estimated fair value at September
30, 2009 (see discussion under the heading Fair Value Measurements for a
complete discussion of our valuation methods), we recognized approximately
$25,000 and $185,000, respectively, in impairment charges for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2009. We also recognized unrealized gains of
approximately $14,000 and $467,000 for temporary increases in estimated fair
value of certain other ARS for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2009, respectively.
These
securities will continue to be analyzed each reporting period for
other-than-temporary impairment factors, which may require us to recognize
additional impairment charges. If our efforts to raise additional capital as
discussed in Note 1 are successful, we believe that we will not require access
to the underlying ARS prior to June 30, 2010.
Cash
Flows
We used
$10.9 million of cash for continuing operating activities during the nine months
ended September 30, 2009, compared to $18.1 million during the same period in
2008. Use of funds in operating activities include general and administrative
expense, excluding share-based expense, provision for doubtful accounts and loss
on disposition of assets, the cost of healthcare services revenue and research
and development costs, which totaled approximately $10.5 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009, compared to $23.0 million for the same period
in 2008. The decrease in net cash used reflects the decline in such expenses,
resulting mainly from our efforts to streamline operations, as described
above.
Capital
expenditures for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were $17,000, compared
to $899,000 for the same period in 2008 and we do not expect capital
expenditures to be material for the remainder of 2009. Our future capital
requirements will depend upon many factors, including progress with our
marketing efforts, the time and costs involved in preparing, filing,
prosecuting, maintaining and enforcing patent claims and other proprietary
rights, the necessity of, and time and costs involved in obtaining, regulatory
approvals, competing technological and market developments, and our ability to
establish collaborative arrangements, effective commercialization, marketing
activities and other arrangements.
As
discussed above, our current plans call for expending cash at a rate of
approximately $650,000 per month, excluding short-term debt, non-current accrued
liability payments and the impact of management’s plans for additional cost
reductions.
Public
and Private Placement Stock Offerings
We have
financed our operations, since inception, primarily through the sale of shares
of our common stock in public and private placement stock offerings. The
following table sets forth a summary of our equity offering proceeds, net of
expenses, since our inception (in millions):
Date
|
Transaction Type
|
Amount
|
|
September
2003
|
Private
Placement
|
$ | 21.3 |
December
2004
|
Private
Placement
|
21.3 | |
November
2005
|
Public
Offering
|
40.2 | |
December
2006
|
Private
Placement
|
24.4 | |
November
2007
|
Registered
Direct Placement
|
42.8 | |
September
2009
|
Registered
Direct Placement
|
6.3 | |
$ | 156.3 |
On
September 17, 2009, we completed a registered direct placement with select
institutional investors, in which we issued an aggregate of 9,333,000 shares of
common stock at a price of $0.75 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately
$7 million. We also issued three-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of
approximately 2,333,000 additional shares of our common stock at an exercise
price of $0.85 per share. The fair value of the warrants at the date of issue
was estimated at $814,000, and this portion of the proceeds was accounted for as
a liability since accounting rules require us to presume a cash settlement of
the warrants because there is a requirement to deliver registered shares of
stock upon exercise, which is considered outside the control of the Company. We
incurred approximately $883,000 in fees to placement agents and other
transaction costs in connection with the transaction, which includes
approximately $184,000 relating to 560,000 warrants issued to placement agents,
representing the estimated fair value on the date of issue. These warrants are
also being accounted for as liabilities on our consolidated balance
sheet.
Highbridge
Senior Secured Note
On August
11, 2009, we amended our amended and restated senior secured note with
Highbridge International LLC (Highbridge), to extend the maturity date from
January 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010, and Highbridge agreed to give up its optional
redemption rights. We also committed to exercising our right to sell our
ARS in accordance with the terms of the rights offering by UBS, who sold them to
us, and use the proceeds from the sale to redeem the note. If we borrow or
raise capital, we will use all or a portion of the funds raised to redeem the
note at 110%. We also amended all 1.8 million warrants that had been
previously issued to Highbridge to purchase shares of our common stock
(including 1.3 million issued in conjunction with the amended and restated note
in 2008 and 540,000 issued in conjunction with the November 2007 registered
direct financing), to change the exercise price to $0.28 per share, and extend
the expiration date to five years from the amendment date.
During
the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we drew down additional proceeds under
the UBS line of credit facility, and used the proceeds to pay down the principal
balance on our senior secured note with Highbridge.. We made an additional
$318,000 pay down on the senior secured note in September 2009, using proceeds
that we received from the registered direct stock financing that was completed
in the same month. We recognized losses of $54,000 and $330,000, respectively,
on extinguishment of debt resulting from these pay downs, which are included in
our loss from continuing operations for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2009.
UBS
Line of Credit
In May
2008, our investment portfolio manager, UBS, provided us with a demand
margin loan facility collateralized by our ARS, which allowed us to borrow up to
50% of the UBS-determined market value of our ARS.
As
discussed above in “Liquidity and Going Concern,” UBS made a “Rights” offering
to its clients in October 2008, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS
all ARS held in our UBS account. As part of the offering, UBS has provided us a
line of credit (replacing the demand margin loan), subject to certain
restrictions as described
in the
prospectus, equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS, until they are
purchased by UBS. We accepted the UBS offer on November 6, 2008.
As of
September 30, 2009, the outstanding balance on our line of credit was $6.5
million. In August 2009, we paid down $1.3 million on the UBS line of credit,
using 100% of the proceeds received from the redemption of certain ARS by the
issuer, at par. The loan is subject to a rate of interest based upon the current
91-day U.S. Treasury bill rate plus 120 basis points, payable monthly, and is
carried in short-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance
Sheet.
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
From time
to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our
operations in the normal course of business. As of the date of this
report, we are not currently involved in any legal proceeding that we believe
would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
operating results.
CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS AND COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
The
following table sets forth a summary of our material contractual obligations and
commercial commitments as of September 30, 2009 (in thousands):
Less
than
|
1 - 3 | 3 - 5 |
More
than
|
||||||||||||
Contractual
Obligations
|
Total
|
1
year
|
years
|
years
|
5
years
|
||||||||||
Outstanding
Debt Obligations
|
$ | 9,986 | $ | 9,986 | - | - | - | ||||||||
Capital
Lease Obligations
|
118 | 67 | 51 | - | - | ||||||||||
Operating
Lease Obligations
|
1,934 | 1,352 | 582 | - | - | ||||||||||
Clinical
Studies
|
1,473 | 1,452 | 21 | - | - | ||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 13,511 | $ | 12,857 | $ | 654 | $ | - | $ | - |
OFF
BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
As of
September 30, 2009, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements.
CRITICAL
ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
Critical
Accounting Estimates
The
discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is
based upon our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. GAAP requires
management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported
amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities. We base our estimates on experience and on
various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about
the carrying values of assets and liabilities that may not be readily apparent
from other sources. On an on-going basis, we evaluate the appropriateness of our
estimates and we maintain a thorough process to review the application of our
accounting policies. Our actual results may differ from these
estimates.
We
consider our critical accounting estimates to be those that (1) involve
significant judgments and uncertainties, (2) require estimates that are
more difficult for management to determine, and (3) may produce materially
different results when using different assumptions. We have discussed these
critical accounting estimates, the basis for their underlying assumptions and
estimates and the nature of our related disclosures herein with the Audit
Committee of our Board of Directors. We believe our accounting policies related
to share-based compensation expense, the impairment assessments for intangible
assets, valuation of marketable securities and estimation of the fair value of
warrant liabilities involve our most significant judgments and estimates that
are material to our consolidated financial statements. They are discussed
further below:
Commencing
January 1, 2006, we implemented changes that the FASB issued related to the
accounting for employee stock options, on a modified-prospective basis to
recognize share-based compensation for employee stock option awards in our
statements of operations for future periods. We account for the issuance of
stock, stock options and warrants for services from non-employees based an
estimate the fair value of options and warrants using the Black-Scholes pricing
model. This model’s calculations include the exercise price, the market price of
shares on grant date, weighted average assumptions for risk-free interest rates,
expected life of the option or warrant, expected volatility of our stock and
expected dividend yield.
The
amounts recorded in the financial statements for share-based expense could vary
significantly if we were to use different assumptions. For example, the
assumptions we have made for the expected volatility of our stock price have
been based on the historical volatility of our stock and the stock of other
public healthcare companies, measured over a period generally commensurate with
the expected term, since we have a limited history as a public company and
complete reliance on our actual stock price volatility would not be meaningful.
If we were to use the actual volatility of our stock price, there may be a
significant variance in the amounts of share-based expense from the amounts
reported. Based on the 2009 assumptions used for the Black-Scholes pricing
model, a 50% increase in stock price volatility would have increased the fair
values of options by approximately 25%. The weighted average expected option
term for 2009 and 2008 reflects the application of the simplified method set out
in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, which defines the life as the average
of the contractual term of the options and the weighted average vesting period
for all option tranches.
From time
to time, we have retained terminated employees as part-time consultants upon
their resignation from the Company. Because the employees continued to provide
services to us, their options continued to vest in accordance with the original
terms. Due to the change in classification of the option awards, the options
were considered modified at the date of termination. The modifications were
treated as exchanges of the original awards in return for the issuance of new
awards. At the date of termination, the unvested options were no longer
accounted for as employee awards and were accounted for as new non-employee
awards. The accounting for the portion of the total grants that have already
vested and have been previously expensed as equity awards is not
changed.
Impairment
of Intangible Assets
We have
capitalized significant costs for acquiring patents and other intellectual
property directly related to our products and services. We review our intangible
assets for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the
carrying amount of these assets may not be recoverable. In reviewing for
impairment, we compare the carrying value of such assets to the estimated
undiscounted future cash flows expected from the use of the assets and/or their
eventual disposition. If the estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less
than their carrying amount, we record an impairment loss to recognize a loss for
the difference between the assets’ fair value and their carrying value. Since we
have not recognized significant revenue to date, our estimates of future revenue
may not be realized and the net realizable value of our capitalized costs of
intellectual property or other intangible assets may become
impaired.
We
performed an impairment test on intellectual property as of March 31, 2009 and
after considering numerous factors, including a valuation of the intellectual
property by an independent third party, we determined that the carrying value of
certain intangible assets was not recoverable and exceeded the fair value. We
recorded impairment charges totaling $355,000 for these assets as of
March 31, 2009. These charges included $122,000 for intangible assets related to
our managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas, and $233,000 related to
intellectual property for additional indications for the use of the PROMETA
Treatment Program that is currently non-revenue generating. In its valuation,
the independent third-party valuation firm relied on the “relief from royalty”
method, as this method was deemed to be most relevant to the intellectual
property assets of the Company. We determined that the estimated useful lives of
the remaining intellectual property properly reflected the current remaining
economic useful lives of the assets. We also performed additional impairment
tests on intellectual property on June 30 and September 30, 2009 and determined
that no additional impairment charges were necessary.
Investments
include ARS, U.S. Treasury bills, commercial paper and certificates of
deposit with maturity dates greater than three months when purchased, which are
classified as available-for-sale investments and reflected in current or
long-term assets, as appropriate, as marketable securities at fair market value.
Unrealized gains and losses are reported in our Consolidated Balance Sheet
within accumulated other comprehensive loss and within other comprehensive loss.
Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be
“other-than-temporary” are recognized as a non-reversible impairment charge in
the Statement of Operations on the specific identification method in the period
in which they occur.
Since
there have been continued auction failures with our ARS portfolio, quoted prices
for our ARS did not exist as of September 30, 2009 and un-observable inputs were
used. We determined that use of a valuation model was the best available
technique for measuring the fair value of our ARS portfolio and we based our
estimates of the fair value using valuation models and methodologies that
utilize an income-based approach to estimate the price that would be received if
we sold our securities in an orderly transaction between market participants.
The estimated price was derived as the present value of expected cash flows over
an estimated period of illiquidity, using a risk adjusted discount rate that was
based on the credit risk and liquidity risk of the securities.
Based on
the valuation models and methodologies, and consideration of other factors, for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, we recognized approximately
$25,000 and $185,000, respectively, in other-than-temporary decline in value
related to our investment in certain ARS. We also recognized temporary increases
in value of approximately $14,000 and $467,000 related to our investment in
certain other ARS for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009,
respectively, based on the estimated fair value as determined by management.
Other-than-temporary declines in value are reflected as a non-operating expense
in our Consolidated Statements of Operations, whereas subsequent increases in
value are reflected in Stockholders’ Equity on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
While our valuation model includes inputs based on observable measures (credit
quality and interest rates) and un-observable inputs, we determined that the
un-observable inputs were the most significant to the overall fair value
measurement, particularly the estimates of risk adjusted discount rates and
estimated periods of illiquidity.
We
regularly review the fair value of our investments. If the fair value of any of
our investments falls below our cost basis in the investment, we analyze the
decrease to determine whether it represents an other-than-temporary decline in
value. In making our determination for each investment, we consider the
following factors:
●
|
How
long and by how much the fair value of the investments have been below
cost
|
●
|
The
financial condition of the issuers
|
●
|
Any
downgrades of the investment by rating
agencies
|
●
|
Default
on interest or other terms
|
●
|
The
likeliness that we will be required to sell the investments before they
recover their value
|
Warrant
Liabilities
We have
issued warrants in connection with the registered direct placements of our
common stock in November 2007 and September 2009, and the amended and restated
Highbridge senior secured note in July 2008. The warrant agreements include
provisions that require us to record them as a liability, at fair value,
pursuant to FASB accounting rules, including provisions in some warrants that
protect the holders from declines in the Company’s stock price and a requirement
to deliver registered shares upon exercise, which is considered outside the
control of the Company. The warrant liabilities are marked-to-market each
reporting period and changes in fair value are recorded as a non-operating gain
or loss in our statement of operations, until they are completely settled or
expire. The fair value of the warrants is determined each reporting period using
the Black-Scholes option pricing model, and is affected by changes in inputs to
that model including our stock price, expected stock price volatility, interest
rates and expected term.
The
change in fair value of the warrant liabilities amounted to net losses of $4.8
million and $4.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009,
respectively, compared to net gains of $3.8 million and $4.7 million for the
same periods in 2008, respectively. The losses in 2009 resulted mainly from a
$5.4 million charge for anti-dilution adjustments to 1.9 million warrants
outstanding from the November 2007 registered direct placement, triggered by the
terms of the September 2009 registered direct financing. The adjustment resulted
in an increase to
the
number of warrant outstanding totaling 12.4 million warrants and a decrease in
the exercise price from $5.75 to $0.75 per share, due to the relative lower
offering price in the September 2009 registered direct financing.
RECENT
ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
Recently
Adopted
On
September 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) to the authoritative hierarchy of GAAP. These changes
establish the FASB Accounting Standards Codification™ (Codification) as the
source of authoritative accounting principles recognized by the FASB to be
applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of financial statements
in conformity with GAAP. Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) under authority of federal securities laws are also
sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The FASB will no longer issue
new standards in the form of Statements, FASB Staff Positions, or Emerging
Issues Task Force Abstracts; instead the FASB will issue Accounting Standards
Updates (ASU). ASU’s will not be authoritative in their own right as they will
only serve to update the Codification. These changes and the Codification itself
do not change GAAP. Other than the manner in which new accounting guidance is
referenced, the adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated
financial statements.
On July
1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to accounting for and disclosure
of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial
statements are issued or are available to be issued, otherwise known as
“subsequent events.” Specifically, these changes set forth the period after the
balance sheet date during which management of a reporting entity should evaluate
events or transactions that may occur for potential recognition or disclosure in
the financial statements, the circumstances under which an entity should
recognize events or transactions occurring after the balance sheet date in its
financial statements, and the disclosures that an entity should make about
events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date. The adoption
of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements as
management already followed a similar approach prior to the adoption of this new
guidance. We have evaluated subsequent events through November 9, 2009, the
filing date of this quarterly report, and there is no material impact on to our
consolidated financial statements.
On
June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value
disclosures of financial instruments. These changes require a publicly traded
company to include disclosures about the fair value of its financial instruments
whenever it issues summarized financial information for interim reporting
periods. Such disclosures include the fair value of all financial instruments,
for which it is practicable to estimate that value, whether recognized or not
recognized in the statement of financial position; the related carrying amount
of these financial instruments; and the method(s) and significant assumptions
used to estimate the fair value. Other than the required disclosures (see “Fair Value Measurements”),
the adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
On
June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value
accounting. These changes provide additional guidance for estimating fair value
when the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability have
significantly decreased and includes guidance for identifying circumstances that
indicate a transaction is not orderly. This guidance is necessary to maintain
the overall objective of fair value measurements, which is, that fair value is
the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a
liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the
measurement date under current market conditions. The adoption of these changes
had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On
June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to the recognition and
presentation of other-than-temporary impairments. These changes amend existing
other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities to make the
guidance more operational and to improve the presentation and disclosure of
other-than-temporary impairments on debt and equity securities. The adoption of
these changes had no impact on our consolidated statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to accounting for
business combinations. While retaining the fundamental requirements of
accounting for business combinations, including that the purchase
method
be used
for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each
business combination, these changes define the acquirer as the entity that
obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and
establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control
instead of the date that the consideration is transferred. These changes require
an acquirer in a business combination, including business combinations achieved
in stages (step acquisition), to recognize the assets acquired, liabilities
assumed, and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition
date, measured at their fair values as of that date, with limited exceptions.
This guidance also requires the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities
assumed arising from certain contractual contingencies as of the acquisition
date, measured at their acquisition-date fair values. Additionally, these
changes require acquisition-related costs to be expensed in the period in which
the costs are incurred and the services are received instead of including such
costs as part of the acquisition price. We have not engaged in any acquisitions
since this new guidance was issued, so there has been no impact to our
consolidated financial statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB in December 2007 to
accounting for business combinations. These changes apply to all assets acquired
and liabilities assumed in a business combination that arise from certain
contingencies and requires (i) an acquirer to recognize at fair value, at
the acquisition date, an asset acquired or liability assumed in a business
combination that arises from a contingency if the acquisition-date fair value of
that asset or liability can be determined during the measurement period
otherwise the asset or liability should be recognized at the acquisition date if
certain defined criteria are met; (ii) contingent consideration
arrangements of an acquiree assumed by the acquirer in a business combination be
recognized initially at fair value; (iii) subsequent measurements of assets
and liabilities arising from contingencies be based on a systematic and rational
method depending on their nature and contingent consideration arrangements be
measured subsequently; and (iv) disclosures of the amounts and measurement
basis of such assets and liabilities and the nature of the contingencies. We
have not engaged in any acquisitions since this new guidance was issued, so
there has been no impact to our consolidated financial statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to accounting for
intangible assets. These changes amend the factors that should be considered in
developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of
a recognized intangible asset in order to improve the consistency between the
useful life of a recognized intangible asset outside of a business combination
and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of an
intangible asset in a business combination. The adoption of these changes did
not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial
position or cash flows, and the required disclosures regarding our intangible
assets are included under the heading Intangible Assets in Note 2
Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to consolidation
accounting and reporting that establish accounting and reporting for the
non-controlling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. This guidance defines a non-controlling interest, previously called
a minority interest, as the portion of equity in a subsidiary not attributable,
directly or indirectly, to a parent. These changes require, among other items,
that a non-controlling interest be included in the consolidated balance sheet
within equity separate from the parent’s equity; consolidated net income to be
reported at amounts inclusive of both the parent’s and non-controlling
interest’s shares and, separately, the amounts of consolidated net income
attributable to the parent and non-controlling interest all on the consolidated
statement of operations; and if a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained
non-controlling equity investment in the former subsidiary be measured at fair
value and a gain or loss be recognized in net income based on such fair value.
The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
On
January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value
accounting and reporting as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial
liabilities that are not recognized or disclosed at fair value in the
consolidated financial statements on at least an annual basis. These changes
define fair value, establish a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and
expand disclosures about fair value measurements. This guidance applies to other
GAAP that require or permit fair value measurements and is to be applied
prospectively with limited exceptions. The adoption of these changes, as it
relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, had no impact on
our consolidated financial statements. These provisions will be applied at such
time a fair value measurement of a nonfinancial asset or nonfinancial liability
is required, which may result in a fair value that is materially different than
would have been calculated prior to the adoption of these changes.
In
December 2008, the FASB issued changes requiring public entities to provide
additional disclosures about transfers of financial assets. It also requires
public entities to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with
VIEs. These changes were adopted for the Company's fiscal year ending December
31, 2008. We are required to consolidate the revenues and expenses of the
managed medical corporations. The financial results of managed treatment centers
are included in our consolidated financial statements under accounting standards
applicable to VIEs, and the required disclosures regarding our involvement with
VIEs are included above under the heading Variable Interest Entities in
Note 2 Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies.
On April
1, 2009 we adopted changes issued by the FASB in June 2008 to provide guidance
in determining whether certain financial instruments (or embedded feature) are
considered to be “indexed to an entity’s own stock.” Existing guidance under
GAAP considers certain financial instruments to be outside the scope of
derivative accounting, specifying that a contract that would otherwise meet the
definition of a derivative but is both (a) indexed to the Company’s own
stock and (b) classified in stockholders’ equity in the statement of
financial position would not be considered a derivative financial instrument.
These changes provide a new two-step model to be applied in determining whether
a financial instrument or an embedded feature is indexed to an entity’s own
stock and thus able to qualify for the derivative accounting scope exception.
These changes did not have any impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
Recently
Issued
In August
2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-15, which changes the fair value accounting for
liabilities. These changes clarify existing guidance that in circumstances in
which a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability is not
available, an entity is required to measure fair value using either a valuation
technique that uses a quoted price of either a similar liability or a quoted
price of an identical or similar liability when traded as an asset, or another
valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value
measurements, such as an income approach (e.g., present value technique). This
guidance also states that both a quoted price in an active market for the
identical liability and a quoted price for the identical liability when traded
as an asset in an active market when no adjustments to the quoted price of the
asset are required are Level 1 fair value measurements. This ASU is effective on
January 1, 2010. Adoption of this ASU will not have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In June
2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for variable interest entities.
These changes require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine whether
the enterprise’s variable interest or interests give it a controlling financial
interest in a variable interest entity; to require ongoing reassessments of
whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity;
to eliminate the quantitative approach previously required for determining the
primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity; to add an additional
reconsideration event for determining whether an entity is a variable interest
entity when any changes in facts and circumstances occur such that holders of
the equity investment at risk, as a group, lose the power from voting rights or
similar rights of those investments to direct the activities of the entity that
most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance; and to require
enhanced disclosures that will provide users of financial statements with more
transparent information about an enterprise’s involvement in a variable interest
entity. These changes become effective for us beginning on January 1, 2010.
The adoption of this change is not expected to have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In June
2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for transfers of financial
assets. These changes remove the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity
and remove the exception from the application of variable interest accounting to
variable interest entities that are qualifying special-purpose entities; limits
the circumstances in which a transferor derecognizes a portion or component of a
financial asset; defines a participating interest; requires a transferor to
recognize and initially measure at fair value all assets obtained and
liabilities incurred as a result of a transfer accounted for as a sale; and
requires enhanced disclosure; among others. These changes will become effective
for us on January 1, 2010.
Item
3. Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
We invest
our cash in short term high grade commercial paper, certificates of deposit,
money market accounts and marketable securities. We consider any liquid
investment with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased to
be cash equivalents. We classify investments with maturity dates greater than
three months when purchased as marketable securities, which have readily
determined fair values at the time of purchase and are classified as
available-for-sale securities. Our investment policy requires that all
investments be investment grade quality and no more than ten percent of our
portfolio may be invested in any one security or with one institution. We have
not invested in any instruments which are not classified as "available-for-sale"
securities pursuant to accounting rules related to investment in debt
securities.
Unrealized
gains and losses are reported in our Consolidated Balance Sheet within the
caption entitled “Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)” and within
Comprehensive Income (Loss) under the caption “other comprehensive income
(loss).” Realized gains and losses are recognized in the statement of operations
on the specific identification method in the period in which they occur.
Declines in estimated fair value judged to be other-than-temporary are
recognized as an impairment charge in the statement of operations in the period
in which they occur.
In making
our determination whether losses are considered to be “other-than-temporary”
declines in value, we consider the following factors at each quarter-end
reporting period:
●
|
How
long and by how much the fair value of the ARS securities have been below
cost,
|
●
|
The
financial condition of the issuers,
|
●
|
Any
downgrades of the securities by rating
agencies,
|
●
|
Default
on interest or other terms, and
|
●
|
The
likeliness that we will be required to sell the ARS before they recover
their value.
|
In
accordance with current accounting rules for investments in debt securities and
additional application guidance issued by the FASB in April 2009,
other-than-temporary declines in value are reflected as a non-operating expense
in our Consolidated Statement of Operations because it is more likely than not
that we will be required to sell the ARS before the recover in value, whereas
subsequent increases in value are reflected in Stockholders’ Equity on our
Consolidated Balance Sheet.
As of
September 30, 2009 our total investment in ARS was $10.2 million (par value),
which had an estimated fair value of $9.2 million. In February 2008, the market
for ARS effectively ceased when the majority of auctions failed and prevented
holders from selling their investments. Although the securities are Aaa/AAA
rated and collateralized by portfolios of student loans guaranteed by the U.S.
government, based on current market conditions it is likely that auctions will
continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term, limiting the liquidity of these
investments until the issuer calls the securities, or they mature. As a
result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying
value of our investment in the near term may be limited or does not
exist. In October 2008, UBS made a “Rights” offering to its clients,
pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all ARS held by us in our UBS
account. The Rights permit us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price
equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on
June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012 if the securities are not earlier
redeemed or sold. Because of our ability to sell the ARS under the UBS rights
offering, the ARS investments have been classified in current assets at
September 30, 2009.
Considering
the illiquid ARS market, the recent deterioration of overall market conditions
and our financial condition and near-term liquidity needs, we have concluded
that it is likely that we would need to sell our ARS before they would recover
in value and any decline in the fair value of ARS should be considered as
‘other-than-temporary’. Based on the current estimated fair value at September
30, 2009, we recognized approximately $25,000 and $185,000, respectively, in
impairment charges for other-than-temporary decline in value for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2009. We also recognized temporary increases in
value of approximately $14,000 and $467,000 related to our investment in certain
other ARS for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively.
These securities will continue to be analyzed each reporting period for
other-than-temporary impairment factors, which may require us to recognize
additional impairment charges. If our efforts to raise additional capital as
discussed in Financial Condition and Liquidity are successful, we believe that
we will not require access to the underlying ARS prior to June 30,
2010.
The
weighted average interest rate of marketable securities held at September 30,
2009 was 1.06%. Investments in both fixed rate and floating rate interest
earning instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk arising from changes in
the level or volatility of interest rates; however interest rate movements do
not materially affect the market value of our ARS because of the frequency of
the rate resets and the short-term nature of these investments. A reduction in
the overall level of interest rates may produce less interest income from our
investment portfolio. If overall interest rates had declined by an average of
100 basis points during the three months ended September 30, 2009, the amount of
interest income earned from our investment portfolio during that period would
have decreased by an estimated amount of $27,000. The market risk associated
with our investments in debt securities is substantially mitigated by the
frequent turnover of our portfolio.
We have
no material foreign exchange risk.
Item
4. Controls
and Procedures
We have
evaluated, with the participation of our chief executive officer and our chief
financial officer, the effectiveness of our system of disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on this
evaluation our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer have
determined that they are effective in connection with the preparation of this
report. There were no changes in the internal controls over financial
reporting that occurred during the three months ended September 30, 2009 that
have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our
internal control over financial reporting.
PART II – OTHER
INFORMATION
|
Item
1A. Risk
Factors
Our
results of operations and financial condition are subject to numerous risks and
uncertainties described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2008, filed on
March 31, 2009, and amended on April 30, 2009, and incorporated herein by
reference. You should carefully consider these risk factors in conjunction with
the other information contained in this report. Should any of these risks
materialize, our business, financial condition and future prospects could be
negatively impacted. The risks described in the Form 10-K are not the only risks
we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we
currently deem to be immaterial may materially adversely affect our business,
financial condition and/or operating results. As of September 30, 2009, there
have been no material changes to the disclosures made on the above-referenced
Form 10-K.
You
should understand that the following important factors, in addition to those
referred to above and described in the “Risk Factors” in the Form 10-K could
affect our future results and could cause those results to differ materially
from those expressed in such forward-looking statements:
●
|
the
anticipated results of clinical studies on our treatment programs, and the
publication of those results in medical
journals
|
●
|
plans
to have our treatment programs approved for reimbursement by third-party
payers
|
●
|
plans
to license our treatment programs to more healthcare
providers
|
●
|
marketing
plans to raise awareness of our PROMETA and Catasys treatment
programs
|
●
|
anticipated
trends and conditions in the industry in which we operate, including our
future operating results, capital needs, and ability to obtain
financing
|
We
undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or any other
reason. All subsequent forward-looking statements attributable to the Company or
any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the
cautionary statements contained or referred to herein. In light of these risks,
uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in this
report may not occur.
Item
2. Unregistered
Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
In August
2009, we issued 600,000 shares of common stock to Investor Relations Services,
Inc., a consultant providing investor relations services to us valued at
approximately $168,000. The use of proceeds from the shares of common stock was
used to pay for consulting services for the benefit of the Company. These
securities were issued without registration pursuant to the exemption afforded
by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as a transaction by us not
involving any public offering.
Item
4. Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Our
annual meeting of stockholders was held on September 18, 2009. There were
42,529,257 shares present in person or by proxy. Our stockholders elected all of
the board’s nominees for director. Proxies were solicited and there were
7,922,440 abstentions from the vote. The stockholders voted at the meeting as
follows:
Five
nominees of the Board of Directors were elected for one-year terms expiring on
the date of the annual meeting in 2010.
For
|
Withheld
|
|
Terren
S. Peizer
|
41,132,401
|
1,396,857
|
Richard
A. Anderson
|
41,367,870
|
1,161,388
|
Andrea
Grubb Barthwell., M.D.
|
40,534,572
|
1,994,685
|
Marc
G. Cummins
|
41,198,545
|
1,330,712
|
Jay
A. Wolf
|
40,490,462
|
2,038,796
|
Item
6. Exhibits
Exhibit
31.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
Exhibit
31.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
Exhibit
32.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
Exhibit
32.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
SIGNATURES
|
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized.
HYTHIAM,
INC.
|
||
Date:
November 9, 2009
|
By:
|
/s/
TERREN S. PEIZER
|
Terren
S. Peizer
|
||
Chief
Executive Officer
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
||
Date:
November 9, 2009
|
By:
|
s/
MAURICE HEBERT
|
Maurice
Hebert
|
||
Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal
Financial and Accounting
Officer)
|
II-3